Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Japan

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the light of the latest trade figures, what estimate he has made of the prospects for improving the balance of the United Kingdom's trade with Japan; and of increasing the total trade between the two countries in a substantial way.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the latest trends in British trade with Japan.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): In my discussions with Japanese Ministers I have emphasised my concern to achieve a more

balanced and stable expansion of trade between the two countries. They showed a clear understanding of this point of view. We discussed further developments of policy that are taking place in Japan. During my talks with the Japanese Minister of International Trade and Industry we affirmed our concern that confidence in the possibility of such an expansion should not be weakened by difficulties arising from the marketing of particular products. I stressed the need for early action to remedy such difficulties. We agreed that a further meeting of officials should be held in early September to review the progress that had been made by that time.

Mr. McCrindle: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has he intimated to the Japanese authorities that unless there are clear signs over the next few months of an opening up of trade opportunities for British exporters, Her Majesty's Government may be forced to review the freedom with which Japanese exporters of ball-bearings and textiles in particular are at present allowed to enter the British market?

Mr. Davies: Yes, the Japanese Ministers realised that there were some comparatively worrying elements in their own market and its accessibility to British exporters. They also realised the difficulties that their exporters were causing in a number of specialised fields here. This was the whole subject of my discussions with them.

Mr. Blaker: Following the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle), is it not true that Japanese practices in relation to imports into Japan and in relation to foreign investment in Japan are relatively more strict than those found in other most advanced industrial countries? Bearing in mind Japan's tremendous prosperity, has the time not come when the Japanese could safely relax these practices?

Mr. Davies: Yes, I think they realise that Japan has passed the point of becoming a great industrial success and that it does not need to take precautionary measures which perhaps were considered appropriate in the past. I am sure that the measures I discussed with them while I was in Tokyo were such as to give effect to the objectives outlined by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Mason: The imports of certain products have been causing a great deal of alarm in this country and we are grateful to the Secretary of State for giving the matter the urgency it requires, albeit after some delay. Can the Secretary of State say what he hopes to achieve in the short term in relation to ball-bearings, polyester fibre and electronics coming into this country from Japan and what safeguards he intends revoking under the Anglo-Japanese trade agreement if a good response is not forthcoming?

Mr. Davies: On the first point, I discussed specific measures with the Japanese in order to ease the pressure concerning a certain number of items to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The Japanese recognised the problems with which I faced them. The safeguard provisions are those which allow the British Government, if necessary, to impede the further import of goods here in certain circumstances. The circumstances are clearly stated and would have to be met in any given case.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State realise that owing to cut-throat Japanese competition the firm of RHP in my constituency is facing up to 400 further redundancies in addition to 400 already faced in November? Since he has had the stamina to go to Japan, will he come to Chelmsford to see what he can do to help in this appalling human and social situation?

Mr. Davies: I entirely understand the great concern my hon. Friend has in this matter. I have had the opportunity of discussions with the management of RHP and I have forcefully brought to the attention of the Japanese the particular problems of the ball-and-roller-bearing industry. Specific proposals for the relief of the situation in this industry have been discussed with them.

Slimming Aids

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will order an inquiry into the extent of misleading advertising for alleged slimming aids.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): No, Sir. If misleading advertisements are being published the need is to suppress them rather than to count them.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware of the recent report prepared by Which? showing the scandalously misleading way in which some slimming aids and remedies are being advertised? Is it not correct that there are many people who are overweight and badly need medical attention, and does he not agree that misleading advertisements about slimming should not be allowed?

Mr. Noble: Yes, I have read the article to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The right way to deal with the problemis for the British Code of Advertising Practice to be correctly applied.

Mr. Alan Williams: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether any study is being undertaken in his Department into to need for a stronger watchdog body to supervise advertising? Does he realise that 99 per cent. of the British public do not know of the existence of the Advertising Standards Association? Is he further aware that it is just as well they do not know of its existence because this association has a derisory budget with which to try to control the standards of advertising amounting to over £1,000 million?

Mr. Noble: The best answer I can give is to say that the Trade Descriptions Act and other legislation are adequate to deal with advertising on this subject which is false to a material degree.

Scotland (Expenditure)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the amount to be spent annually over the next three years in Scotland as a result of the new regional policies.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him in reply to a similar Question on 17th April, 1972.—[Vol. 8, c. 1.]

Mr. Hamilton: Is it not the case that the Government have no idea of the total cost? When they drafted their legislation, did they not have some figure before them, or is this just a blank cheque with the Government unaware of how much or how little these policies would cost?

Mr. Grant: No, Sir. The Government clearly set out in paragraph 59 of the White Paper the estimates for Great Britain as a whole. It is not practicable to make forecasts for individual areas.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the amount to be spent will be considerably more than Scotland has ever enjoyed in the past and will lead to a substantial reduction in the unemployment figures?

Mr. Grant: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that the Government's proposals measure up to the biggest-ever incentive to investment and the biggest-ever differential to the regions.

Mr. Eadie: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the unemployment figure in Scotland is the greatest we have seen for many a year?

Mr. Grant: I agree that there was a gratifying fall last month.

Balance of Trade

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is proposing in order to in crease exports and remove the deficit on the balance of trade.

Mr. Noble: The country's export performance reflects the results achieved by individual exporters. The Government provide a wide range of services to support these exporters in their efforts. The British Overseas Trade Board is at present conducting a review of these services.

Mrs. Short: Is that not a disappointing reply since it shows that neither the Minister nor the Department intends to take any steps to remedy the position? Is it not a serious situation when the average balance of payments deficit reaches £55 million a month, as has been the case since the beginning of the year? Is he not concerned about the reduction in the number of cars exported and about the corresponding increase in the number of cars imported—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Enough is enough. The hon. Lady has already asked three supplementary questions. That is as many as I can allow.

Mrs. Short: Does the Minister not think he ought to do something about it?

Mr. Noble: The hon. Lady is correct if she thinks that I should be concerned that our export figures, whether related to cars or to anything else, should be as good as they possibly can be. But, as my reply indicated, it is up to individual exporters to do this job and up to the Government to provide the best export services they can. I believe our export services are the best in the world.

Mr. Powell: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that for this country a favourable balance of visible trade is a damaging absurdity?

Mr. Noble: I can at least agree that this has happened on only a handful of occasions in the last hundred years.

Mr. Mason: What exactly has the British Overseas Trade Board been doing?

Mr. Noble: The British Overseas Trade Board is properly considering, with a great deal of care, the considerable amount of money it spends on behalf of the Government, and I am sure it will soon be making a full report.

Advance Factories, Blyth

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what inquiries have been received for the Government advance factories on the Kitty-brewster Estate, Blyth; what are the prospects in regard to job opportunities in the advance factories during the next six months; and if he will make a statement
.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Negotiations are in progress with firms interested in both vacant advance factories on the Department's Blyth Estate. Job prospects will depend on these negotiations and on the type of industry attracted.

Mr. Milne: Is the Minister aware that we are not taking adequate opportunities in regard to the available advance factories in development districts? Does he not agree that there are far too many job opportunities lying wasted in un-tenanted advance factories? Therefore, will the Government take special measures in the coming weeks to remedy the situation?

Mr. Grant: On the narrow point of the estate to which the Question refers, I understand that it is owned by the local authority. My answer was related to Government advance factories. If there is any difficulty over this matter, perhaps any confusion can be cleared in correspondence. On the general point, it is desirable to get the empty advance factories occupied as soon as possible, and the measures announced by the Government in the Industry Bill and our general economic measures should assist in this direction.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that whether we are thinking of an advance factory in Kitty-brewster or a factory anywhere else in the North East of England, the reflation of the economy undertaken by the present Government is one of the most encouraging features of economic life which we have known in the North East of England for many years?

Mr. Grant: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Milne: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on

the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

European Economic Community

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has now made of the amount of compensation which the United Kingdom will have to pay to non-European Economic Community countries upon joining the European Economic Community as a result of raising tariff barriers against those countries.

Mr. Noble: Any compensation due for the withdrawal of tariff concessions by countries acceding to the Community will fall to be provided by the enlarged Community as a whole. It will be assessed in negotiations with the countries principally affected.

Mr. Moyle: Does the Minister agree that we shall have to pay our proportion of the compensation? Is this not a matter which should come before the House so that we all know what is involved in joining the EEC?

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect if he assumes that compensation will necessarily be due, since accession to the Community will involve reductions in some tariffs which will have to be balanced against the increases elsewhere.

Machine Tool Industry

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research has been undertaken into the likely effects on the machine tool industry of increased expenditure by public bodies under his recently announced scheme.

Mr. Anthony Grant: The £9–10 million scheme for additional Government purchases of machine tools was based on an evaluation of the difficulties facing the industry by the Machine Tool Economic Development Council.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a tremendous amount of concern among workers in the industry about how much of this money they will get? Since I have already been told in countless answers that the Department cannot differentiate between money spent on British machine tools


and that spent on foreign machine tools, may I be told how we can be certain that any of this money will be spent on British machine tools?

Mr. Grant: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but he must understand, and I think he does understand, that we are bound by international trading agreements. In this respect there is no difference between the present Administration and the previous Administration in what has been done in abiding by these agreements. But, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State estimated earlier, only a very small proportion would be imported machines. This is borne out by a survey undertaken two years ago which showed that purchasing by universities and technical institutions amounted to no more than 3 per cent.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is my hon. Friend aware that machine tool manufacturers in my constituency have found a considerable reluctance on the part of education authorities to purchase other than very small machines, which are not suitable for industrial training? Will he have words with the Department of Education and Science and ask them to urge the spending institutions to recognise the case for the purchase of machine tools of adequate size and scope?

Mr. Grant: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, although I do not necessarily confirm that that is the situation. I will discuss it with the Department concerned.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the workers of Churchill Machine Tools at Altrincham have completely given up hope that that establishment will be saved by the Government and have resigned themselves to redundancies? Therefore, will he now say flatly whether the Government will save Churchill Machine Tools before it is too late?

Mr. Grant: That does not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper, but if the hon. Gentleman cares to put a Question down on this matter, I will do my best to answer it.

Charter Flight Regulations

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will

seek to amend the Civil Aviation Act to give the Civil Aviation Authority more effective powers to deal with abuses of charter flight regulations.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow): No, Sir. The relevant parts of the Civil Aviation Act came into force only on 1st April. We must clearly allow some time before we can assess sensibly how they are working.

Mr. Tebbit: Has my hon. Friend read the article in a recent issue of the Daily Mail by Mr. Gilchrist in which he gave, in a long account, chapter and verse of the way in which not only were regulations breached but many passengers were swindled, although it should be said that many of them were conniving at the breach of regulations? Can my hon. Friend assure me that steps will be taken to put an end to this sort of abuse?

Mr. Onslow: I have seen the article. It certainly shows that passengers who cut corners in this way do so at considerable cost in terms of comfort and dignity and also money. I welcome the enterprise of the Daily Mail in making this clear again. Enforcement is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority, and no doubt my hon. Friend will have seen the recent statement by its chairman.

Mr. William Price: Could not the airlines do a lot to deal with this matter by charging much more realistic fares on normal flights?

Mr. Onslow: I expect the hon. Gentleman will have seen that fares are inclining downwards and that he welcomes this.

Mr. Mason: What measures are taken by the Department to check the bona fidesof these charter operators, and especially the affinity group charters, where there seems to be more illegality practised than in any other form of chartering? To what extent are exempt charters, which the Department gave to BOAC and British-Caledonian, helping to cut down the illegal charter trade?

Mr. Onslow: Staff are employed on this work by the Civil Aviation Authority and I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman his answer off hand. Exempt charters have nothing to do with this matter.

Talcum and Face Powders

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps, under the Weights and Measures Act, 1963, to ensure that talcum and face powders are sold in prescribed quantities.

Mr. Onslow: These powders vary so much in density, composition, quality, price and performance, that I doubt whether in general it would be helpful to the average purchaser.

Miss Fookes: Will my hon. Friend take note that I think it high time that we had a woman at the Department of Trade and Industry, who would give more practical answers than that?

Mr. Onslow: I am always obliged to my hon. Friend for her advice and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have taken due note. But it remains a fact that the proposition she makes would be of little help to consumers, male or female.

Mr. Dalyell: On what criterion does the Department of Aerospace weigh the performance of talcum powders?

Mr. Onslow: My Department is responsible for answering Questions on this subject because of its overall responsibility for standards, weights and measures. If the hon. Gentleman is asking for a personal view on this matter, I should be happy to talk to him outside.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that an earlier supplementary question referred to practical help? Is it not a fact that practical help given by the present Government has been to reduce purchase tax on all cosmetics from 55 per cent. to 25 per cent. and that this is aiding millions of female consumers?

Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the Government have been guilty of gross failure in consumer protection and that their disinterest in unit packaging is one more demonstration of that fact? Will he tell us when or whether the Government intend to implement the recommendations made by Crowther on consumer protection well over a year ago?

Mr. Onslow: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question does not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper. He must await a statement on that matter. In making the allegation in the first part of his supplementary question, he is ignorant of the facts. It is the present law that any package of talcum or face powder weighing 12 grammes or more must be marked with the net weight. If a package is not so marked, it must weigh less than 12 grammes, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is slightly over one-third of an ounce.

Paper Industry

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the position of the United Kingdom paper industry in relation to current international negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Noble: We have been in close and constant touch with the United Kingdom paper and board industry about the negotiations in Brussels between the EEC and the EFTA non-candidate countries. We shall continue to consult the United Kingdom industry as these negotiations proceed.

Mr. Moate: Is it not the case that there is great fear in the British paper industry, which is still employing some 80,000 people who are likely to get the worst of both worlds by entry into the EEC and who have expressed dissatisfaction with the latest proposals from the Government? If the Government are prepared to issue warnings to the Japanese about such matters as ball-bearings and their aggressive selling techniques, would it not be helpful to do the same to Scandinavians on the question of the sale of paper to this country?

Mr. Noble: I appreciate that the paper industry has expressed considerable fears but as far as I am aware—and I have met its leaders on one or two occasions recently—it is not worried about any statement from the Government but about the mandate produced in Brussels, with which the United Kingdom has already expressed disagreement.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is it not a fact that, while Britain may have expressed


its disagreement, if the Council of Ministers nevertheless comes to an agreement, whether the paper makers like it or not, this House can do nothing about it once the Government have agreed with the Council of Ministers in Brussels?

Mr. Noble: The key to the reply is in the hon. Gentleman's last few words. Once we have agreed with the Council of Ministers there is nothing else we can do, but we are doing our best to see that the right answer is achieved both for our former partners in EFTA and for our own paper industry.

North Sea Oil

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for refining North Sea oil in Great Britain.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): It is too early to make any detailed assessment of the scale of operations. However the United Kingdom has a large refining industry, and there is every likelihood that companies will refine substantial quantities of North Sea oil in Great Britain.

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Question is really about jobs? There is great concern, particularly in Scotland, in relation to how the new oil finds will be exploited. Some people are beginning to think they have already been betrayed by the Government. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be ridiculous if oil found off our shores were refined in another country?

Mr. Emery: There are three parts to that supplementary question. First, I deny that the Government are not doing everything possible to ensure the greatest exploration in the North Sea—greater than in any other oilfield anywhere in the world at any time. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman must realise that under the operating contracts the oil has to be landed in the United Kingdom. Lastly, oil refineries are very capital intensive and do not create many jobs.

Mr. Skeet: Will my hon. Friend tell us why Chevron was not able to build a refinery on the Clyde?

Mr. Emery: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, since such planning permission comes under his Department.

Coal (Imports)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the total number of tons of coal imported during the past two years; what was the average price per ton; and what is the estimated imported tonnage for the next twelve months.

Mr. Emery: 7·4 million metric tonnes for the two years ended April, 1972, at an average cif value of £9·39 per metric tonne. It should however be noted that the average value is not a true price as it is influenced by the varying qualities of coal, different transport costs and other factors. Future imports will depend on decisions by importers and the requirements of consumers.

Mr. Wainwright: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it disgraceful that we should be importing coal when threats are going around our own coalfields that certain pits, including one in my area, might be closed even if there is plenty of coal still in them? What steps will the Government take, if these pits close, to make alternative work available? What help have the Government given to the National Coal Board in its experiments on coal blending so that we can manage without the importation of special coals?

Mr. Emery: In answer to the last point, the Government are seriously considering, and are in negotiation with the NCB about, bringing forward to the House measures to assist the coal industry. As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, it must be made clear that the importation of coal into this country was necessary after the strike, because of the low levels of supplies. It is a matter of competitiveness, and the NCB realises that very well.

Electricity (Resale Prices)

Dr. Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to provide machinery for the enforcement of maximum resale prices of electricity determined in accordance with Section 29 of the Electricity Act, 1957.

Mr. Emery: No, Sir—for the reasons explained in the reply to the hon. Member's Question on 28th February.—[Vol. 832, c. 31–2.]

Dr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that Section 29 of the Act is useless in practical terms without legal machinery for enforcement, and will the Government take note of the fact that tenants themselves are reluctant to challenge landlords who overcharge?

Mr. Emery: I realise that there is a serious problem here, and it is for that reason that a major campaign is to be waged to publicise the rights which exist under present legislation about maximum resale prices of both electricity and gas.

Mr. Palmer: Could the Minister state how many actions have been brought under Section 29?

Mr. Emery: I am sorry—not without notice.

Licensed Trade (Tied Houses)

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent communication he has received from the Brewers' Society about the tied house system in the licensed trade; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Noble: None, Sir. But I will be pleased to give the hon. Member what information I can if he will let me know what specific point he has in mind.

Mr. Price: I am about to do that. Does the Minister understand that some brewers are using the tied house system to treat tenants in a way which would have been regarded as disgraceful in the eighteenth century? Is he aware that hundreds of tenants who operate successful businesses are being kicked out for no reason other than that the brewers wish to maximise profits, and that they want both retail as well as wholesale profits? Does he not think that instead of letting them act like tyrants he should deal with them by breaking many of the ties operating in this trade?

Mr. Noble: The picture which the hon. Member presents certainly differs from the information we have in the Department. There have been a few cases in which it has been alleged that the Brewers' Society recommendations

relating to choice of drinks at tied houses have not been complied with. We take these up with the individuals concerned. Cases so far have been few, but if the hon. Member would like to give me some cases we will do our best to help in what we know is a genuine problem.

Mr. Lipton: In view of the tendency of the brewers to replace licensees by managers, are the Government taking any action in the near future on the Erroll Report on the whole question of tied houses? Is it not time that the whole tied house system was abolished?

Sir G. Nabarro: Certainly not.

Mr. Noble: Questions about the Committee chaired by Lord Erroll, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are for the Home Secretary.

Mr. Mason: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that on the tied house system the Monopolies Commission reported that it operated against the public interest, that it restricted competition, that it was detrimental to the efficiency of the trade, and that it should be ended? Have the Government any intention of acting on that?

Mr. Noble: According to my information, which may be wrong on this, the Monopolies Commission's only recommendation in its report on the supply of beer was for a substantial relaxation of the licensing laws.

Mr. Price: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I will seek to raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Rolls-Royce Ltd.

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the independent assessor will conclude his evaluation of the price to be paid for the assets taken over from Rolls-Royce Limited by Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited.

Mr. Onslow: The assessor appreciates the need for a price to be settled as soon as possible and is presently discussing his timetable with the parties involved, who are both anxious to see a speedy conclusion. It is too early to say when his deliberations will be concluded.

Mr. Rost: Does the Minister agree that it is 16 months since the assets were taken over, that obviously it will be several months before a price is agreed, that there should now be an interim payment to the liquidator so that he can make payments to creditors, many of whom are in capital goods and engineering and machine tool companies, and that this would be an efficient way to improve employment and orders in capital equipment industries?

Mr. Onslow: My hon. Friend's suggestion is a matter for the joint liquidators. I understand that they have announced that distribution of at least 10 per cent. will be made in September whether or not the Rolls-Royce (1971) assets price has been determined by then.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the Minister not realise the very serious hardship there is in my constituency in Derby, hardship caused to creditors, and particularly to workers who own shares in the company, and also to ordinary share shareholders, by this extraordinary delay and that it is simply not good enough to put everything back on to the liquidator?

Mr. Onslow: I am aware that the consequences of this bankruptcy are widespread, although the hon. Member will not expect me to say more on the subject of workers' shares beyond what I said in the Adjournment debate the other night. I think it is understood that where there is wide disagreement between the parties the procedure of going to an assessor to reach an agreement is one which must be gone through in the public interest.

Price Restraint

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on his discussions with the Confederation of British Industry about the future of its price restraint scheme and its application to the nationalised industries.

Mr. John Davies: I have nothing to add to what I told my hon. Friend on 17th Apriland 8th May and to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 18th May.—[Vol. 835, c. 26;Vol. 836, c. 252; Vol. 837, c. 688.]

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the rather worrying indications in this morning's Financial Times survey of business intentions that cost inflation may be accelerating once more after nine months of the CBI scheme, is my right hon. Friend still of opinion that renewal of the scheme will be worth while, particularly in view of the inflationary impact on the finances of nationalised industries?

Mr. Davies: Yes, I do not at all withdraw from the belief that the effect of the renewal of the CBI scheme will be to continue to slow down the pace of inflation and that this will be most valuable in this very severe battle which we are all having to fight.

Mr. Pardoe: Can the right hon. Gentleman in this connection say what discussions he has had with British Rail concerning the operation of the price-fixing agreement, and the increase in charges for, and the application of the CBI initiative to, cross-Channel ferry charges? Will he stiffen the resolve of British Rail to break the price-fixing agreement?

Mr. Davies: Yes, I am aware of very considerable concern in this field and I am discussing the matter at the moment.

Mr. Biffen: In view of the flexibility of Government policy, as indicated by the Industry Bill, can my right hon. Friend say whether he has any proposal to set up a public authority charged with the task of monitoring proposed major price and wage settlements, reminiscent of the Prices and Incomes Board?

Mr. Davies: No. I have no such intention. My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that the CBI itself has applied certain monitoring arrangements in relation to its own price restraint policy.

Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether talks have been held with the Commission in Brussels about the extent to which it would be in order to apply a price restraint policy to nationalised industries? Secondly, in connection with the question he has just been asked, would he be a little more forthcoming about Government intentions at future NEDC meetings where the whole question of inflation is to be discussed?

Mr. Davies: As regards the Commission, the right hon. Gentleman will be


aware that in certain fields of nationalised industry the present Government's position is changed by accession to the Community. This is a matter which has been debated considerably in the House. Otherwise, there has been, as far as I know, no specific discussion of the Government's position in relation to nationalised industries as regards these matters. NEDC regularly reviews the whole question of the activities undertaken throughout the economy to try to restrain the pace of inflation. This is part of its normal task, and has been for many years during which the right hon. Gentleman and I have been connected with it.

Gas Council

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when he last met representatives of the Gas Council.

Mr. Emery: Meetings take place as necessary. The last was just before the holiday.

Mr. Cox: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether at the meeting any discussion took place criticising the policy of gas boards of charging consumers for the work involved in tracing possible gas leaks? These charges are deeply resented by consumers, and surely it is the duty of the gas boards to safeguard the general public from possible explosions, and they should not charge consumers who report leaks.

Mr. Emery: Two questions arise here. As for the discussions, these are of course, confidential, and are mainly to obtain the greatest degree of co-operation between the Department and the boards. Secondly, I would say that this is a commercial matter which varies from board to board. It is left to the boards to make their own decisions.

Mr. Redmond: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House when he last met the trade unions concerned with the gas industry and what matter was discussed then?

Mr. Emery: Meetings take place as necessary. The last was just before the holiday.

RB211

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to be in a position to make a statement about Government support for an uprated version of the RB211 engine.

Mr. Onslow: Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. sent the Department earlier this month a proposal for Government funding of the launch cost of an uprated RB211, and will shortly be sending further supporting material. It will take us some time to give the proper consideration to this major proposal.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect the remarks of the former Minister for Aerospace to me on 29th February during an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)? The Minister said that no serious time would be lost if the decision on the uprated engine were made at about the same time as Lockheed's proposals for an airframe. Is he aware that we have now had Lockheed's proposals for over a month? Is it not a fact that serious time will be lost unless this decision is made speedily?

Mr. Onslow: I would not necessarily accept the implication of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary. I can tell him that at the most recent meeting with Mr. Haughton he accepted that the time-scale of our decision fits in with his requirements.

Mr. Adley: While recognising the importance of the RB211 and the Lockheed 10–11, may I ask my hon. Friend to assure the House that the A300B is not being neglected in all these discussions? Could he say something about the discussions that may have taken place or have yet to take place between Rolls-Royce and Aerospatiale on the possible fitting of the RB211 in the A300B?

Mr. Onslow: I do not think that the A300B is being neglected, but it is for the airlines in the first instance to express an interest in the matter. I cannot answer my hon. Friend's second question offhand, but if he puts down a Question about it. I will certainly give him the information.

Mr. Millan: Can the hon. Gentleman say what kind of prospective orders the


Government would need to feel reasonably assured about a stretched version of the TriStar before they were willing to fund the stretched version of the RB211?

Mr. Onslow: This is a matter for the Lockheed Corporation to satisfy us that it sees a market, and it would need to satisfy a number of other people as well. I cannot give any other information on that at the moment.

Energy Policy

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government propose to issue their proposals for anew energy policy in substitution of the proposals outlined in Command Paper No. 3438 of 13th November, 1967.

Mr. John Davies: Energy questions are kept under regular review but there is at present no intention of publishing proposals on the subject.

Mr. Skeet: It would seem that the Department is dragging its feet on this. Will the Minister bear in mind that our imminent entry into Europe, the nationalisation of British assets abroad such as IPC and other important factors make it necessary to have an urgent review and to introduce new proposals which would replace the 1967 White Paper?

Mr. Davies: As I said in my Answer, the matter is under constant review. The events to which my hon. Friend refers underline how difficult it is to fix any long-term policy which is sustainable in the light of the many changes which are constantly occurring in this area.

Mr. Varley: In view of the uncertainty overshadowing both the price and the supply of overseas oil and the fast deteriorating balance of payments situation, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he comes forward with proposals suggested in his hon. Friend's question, whether he will make sure that they are based on the maximum practical use of indigenous fuels?

Mr. Davies: Of course I will take very fully into account the advantages of indigenous fuels in terms both of their security and of their contribution to the balance of payments situation. These are important matters in the continuous con-

sideration of these problems which is going on.

Mr. Eadie: Since the right hon. Gentleman told the House on 11th March that natural gas would last for only 20 years and that we could never hope to have even our present capacity of oil, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this means that we should examine our energy policy and that there should be new coal sinkings to give us more self-sufficiency?

Mr. Davies: I should like to reaffirm what I said in reply to these questions. The matter is under continuous and constant review in the light of the changing circumstances. I should also like to sound a note of caution over the hon. Gentleman's ready assumption that we have only 20 years' supply of natural gas. This was not precisely what I said. These are the present levels of estimates of reserves.

Space Agency

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take steps to set up a United Kingdom Space Agency.

Mr. Onslow: Consideration is being given to the recommendation on this matter by the Select Committee on Science and Technology, together with their other recommendations, and a statement will be made to the House in due course.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: While I welcome that reply, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he does not agree that one reason why this country has a less-than-first-line showing in space has been the lack of either single ministerial responsibility or a Government agency to control our space programme? Is he aware that this has led to fragmentation which has resulted in our having a not particularly viable national space technology?

Mr. Onslow: I would not necessarily go all the way with my hon. Friend but certainly we are aware that the Science and Technology Committee saw a powerful case for centralisation and we are getting on with our consideration of this matter—which has been going on for some time—as fast as we can.

Mr. Palmer: As the Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which made


this recommendation, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us why it is taking the Government so long to make a statement?

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman will be the first to understand that the issues involved include establishing the purpose and objectives of the United Kingdom space activity, and we cannot rush a decision on that.

Mr. Tebbit: May I remind my bon. Friend, when he is thinking about the time taken for these reviews, that before he was promoted to his present post he was well known for the cry of "Too long" when supplementaries went on?

Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of my youthful indiscretions.

Mr. Bishop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the next few weeks some critical decisions will have to be taken affecting our future in space in the next decade, and that due to fragmentation, with at least four Ministers and a dozen offices being responsible for this matter, there is no coherent policy such as there is in the United States with NASA? Do he and his colleagues appreciate the grave urgency of this matter?

Mr. Onslow: If I am right in thinking that the hon. Gentleman is trying to anticipate his own Question about a space shuttle, I can assure him that this is very much a factor to be taken into account.

USSR

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of trade between the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the periods March, 1970, to March, 1971, and March, 1971, to March, 1972, respectively.

Mr. Noble: Information on trade by country is published in the Annual Statement of Trade and the monthly Overseas Trade Statistics. In the years ended March, 1971, and March, 1972, imports cif were £216 million and £200 million; exports fob were £93 million and £92 million.

Mr. Dalyell: What was the effect on trade of the Foreign Office rumpus over the Soviet diplomats?

Mr. Noble: It is difficult to make any accurate calculations of the effect. It is true that one or two quite major events are being mounted in Moscow this year with the approval of the Government. The particular factor which they claimed was doing damage—the high rate of interest on export guarantees—has been brought down to a competitive figure.

Mrs. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend accept my assurance that there is much pleasure and satisfaction in many parts of the House that no sanctions operate against the Soviet Union in spite of the fact that many of the internal policies followed by that nation are repugnant to many on this side of the House and an affront to human nature?

Mr. Noble: My task is to try to improve trade with as little interference as possible from party politics.

Mr. Benn: In view of the recent visit by President Nixon, which opens up serious possibilities of American trade with the Soviet Union, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how things stand with the technical agreement we signed in 1968 with the Soviet Union and the extent to which the COCOM restriction, which was very restrictive with regard to our exports, is likely to be modified now that the Americans are anxious to develop trade?

Mr. Noble: The right hon. Gentleman may well be right that there will be some re-thinking of some of the COCOM rules. I cannot intelligently anticipate what may flow from President Nixon's visit to Moscow but we shall continue to treat it as a very serious market and hope to succeed there.

Estate Agents and Mortgage Brokers

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the Society for the Control and Registration of Estate Agents and Mortgage Brokers concerning the need for the introduction of legislation to require the compulsory registration of estate agents and mortgage brokers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Noble: My right hon. Friend has received a letter this morning; it will be considered and a reply sent in due course.

Mr. Davis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any unqualified person


can establish a business of this character, that he does not require to join any professional organisation and that it is a business in which substantial clients' monies, are held and yet there is no requirement to operate a clients' account? Is he further aware that many people have been defrauded by unscrupulous estate agents and that there is therefore a need for legislation to ensure that proper professional practices are operated by these organisations?

Mr. Noble: I do accept that there are possibilities of abuse in this area. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that the number of complaints about estate agents and mortgage brokers has been very small indeed. As my right hon. Friend has announced, we are giving sympathetic consideration to the Crowther recommendation for a licensing system in the area of consumer credit which would include mortgage brokers. In the other sphere it seems that the regulations being carried out voluntarily by the national societies are having a considerable effect.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that far from trying to increase restrictive practices in estate agency we ought to be endeavouring to make it as easy to buy and sell a second-hand house as it is to buy and sell a second-hand car?

Mr. Noble: Perhaps, but on the whole, from my experience recently, buying and selling a second-hand house is a little more expensive than buying and selling a second-hand car. Therefore, consumers are rightly seriously interested to see that their money is safe.

Mr. Alan Williams: Why are the Government only able to tell us that they are still giving sympathetic consideration to the Crowther recommendation, 15 months or more after it was made? What is causing the delay? Why cannot the Government come forward with proposals?

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman is asking the House to join him in being particularly naive. We have a tremendous amount of legislation in the House at the moment [AN HON. MEMBER: "Withdraw some".] We shall before long be coming forward with our suggestions in this area.

Nuclear Reactor Industry

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to bring about the further reorganisation of the nuclear reactor industry.

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Government intends to take in relation to the recommendations in the Vinter Committee Report.

Mr. Emery: The Government are reviewing all aspects of the country's investment in nuclear power, including the ground covered by the Vinter Committee; and is consulting the nuclear industry and other parties concerned. Its decisions will be made known to the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the future shape of the nuclear reactor industry is of the greatest importance to the technology and industry of this country? Does not the House deserve to know what the Vinter Committee has recommended? If that information cannot be given, at least may we have a statement rather better than that which the hon. Gentleman has just made?

Mr. Emery: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". The answer to the second part is that there is a great deal of commercial information which is highly confidential and publication of which would be very damaging to some interests in this country. I do not think that anyone in the House would want that action taken. As soon as it is possible, a statement will be made to the House as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Rost: Would my hon. Friend give an assurance that before any decisions are taken, full consideration will be given to the problems of environmental pollution and safety which the United States has come up against in its systems?

Mr. Emery: That is certainly a major problem. It is of concern to many people, and there are certainly worries about safety in the United States nuclear power programme.

Mr. Benn: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the statement he has made


is itself impossible in that it will affect our own exports or possible exports of nuclear systems and that until the Government are ready to come out with a full statement this industry will simply not be able to make progress? If there are parts of the Vinter Committee Report which are commercially secret, can these not be deleted so that the House may know what are the alternatives, because we simply will not acept the say-so of the Government without the backup evidence when the Committee comes forward with its recommendations?

Mr. Emery: There are two parts to the right hon. Gentleman's question Dealing first with the possibility of publishing the report, it is essential that Ministers in any Government should be able to have the very best advice given to them which can be held to be confidential. Also, while we realise the major problems involved, it must be right to make the correct decision rather than taking one just for the sake of speed.

Heathrow (Near Misses)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in view of the near-miss between two British Overseas Airways Corporation aircraft landing at Heathrow, what action he is taking to ensure that the lives of passengers and of those living in the vicinity of London Airport and in South-East England do not continue to be hazarded; how many near misses have taken place during the last year; and what has been the increase in the number of landings in that period.

Mr. Onslow: It will be for the Civil Aviation Authority to take such action as it considers necessary when it has completed its investigation into this incident. I understand the Authority will be publishing in the Annual Survey of Accidents the numbers of air misses reported in the whole United Kingdom airspace during 1971 which gave rise to specific risk; during 1971 the number of landings was approximately the same as the previous year.

Mr. Jenkins: If the situation is now becoming serious and if the flight data processing system which was supposed to deal with this problem has failed to come into effect, and has to be looked at again, would not it be a wise pre-

caution to reduce the number of landings at Heathrow until a new system has been brought into effect?

Mr. Onslow: If anything, the number of near misses is declining slightly. As for the FDPS decision, this is likely to be announced soon. When it is announced, I hope that the Hon. Gentleman will recognise that considerations of safety have been taken into full account.

Mr. Tebbit: In the discussions that have gone on which are quite important to the British computer industry, has consideration been given to the Goodyear Staram system which looks as though it could be the sort of system which would avoid going overall American and yet still provide sufficient capacity to avoid this risk of collision?

Mr. Onslow: Consideration of the technical issues involved is in the first instance a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. I am advised that the Goodyear system by itself could not perform any meaningful ATC functions.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is the Minister aware that every time an hon. Member asks a Question about Mediator, he is told that it is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority? Cannot we have more information about this, especially since the number of near misses is not going down?

Mr. Onslow: I am sure that the hon Gentleman and I will not agree, but I think that he ought to look again at my reply to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins).

Marshall Report

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now make a statement about the Marshall Report on the aircraft industry.

Mr. Onslow: I have as yet nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's similar Question on 8th May.—[Vol. 836, c. 257.]

Mr. Millan: Is not it highly unsatisfactory that this major industry, which employs very large numbers of people, should be in this continuing state of uncertainty about Government policy towards it? As for publication of the Marshall Committee Report, since there has been Press comment to the effect


that the report is a worthless document, would not it be only fair to Sir Robert Marshall as well as useful to the industry that the report should be published now, with any deletion of confidential information? Is not it thoroughly unsatisfactory that we have a number of reports concerning major industries about which this House is completely uninformed?

Mr. Onslow: I do not accept that the aircraft industry is in a state of uncertainty about the Government's attitude towards it. It is one of support, and a great deal better support than the hon. Gentleman's Government gave it at one time. I have nothing to say about Press comment. We are anxious that a statement should be made, but there is no question of publishing the report.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Even so, will my hon. Friend sympathetically consider publishing either a Green Paper or a White Paper on the future of the aircraft industry as the Government now see it?

Mr. Onslow: The House will receive the fullest information at the appropriate moment. I should welcome a debate.

Mr. Dalyell: Have the Government reflected on the effect of their decision on subcontractors such as Reyrolle-Parsons?

Mr. Onslow: I have no notice that there is such an effect.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the very many leaks that there have been is to the effect that two major air-frame groups, Hawker Siddeley and BAC, are to be merged? In view of the Rolls-Royce experience, should not my hon. Friend be encouraging European groupings in future?

Mr. Onslow: I note what my hon. Friend says, though it would not necessarily produce a smaller unit. In any event, this is a matter in the first instance for the firms concerned.

"Textiles the Challenge"

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has received the communication entitled "Textiles the Challenge", published by the Textile Industry Support Campaign, sent to him by the hon. Member for West Ham, North, asking for

steps to be taken to protect the textile industry on British entry to the European Economic Community; and whether he will make a statement on the action he proposes in the light of it.

Mr. Noble: I am grateful to the hon. Member for providing me with a copy of this communication. I am in close consultation with the United Kingdom textile industry as a whole, about these points.

Mr. Lewis: Having seen this document, the Minister will be aware that the textile industry is very worried and anxious about the Government going into the Common Market without the full-hearted consent of the people and Parliament. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell his right hon. and hon. Friends and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent constituencies concerned with the textile industry that they ought to listen to their electors on this important question?

Mr. Noble: I am aware that there are a number of sections in the textile industry, all of which do not always speak with one voice, which have considerable worries. That is why I meet them regularly. Discussions have also taken place in Brussels on this important subject.

Mr. Redmond: Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing the letter on this subject that his Parliamentary Secretary sent me recently which would give some assurance to the textile industry in Lancashire?

Mr. Noble: I will consider that; though, as the letter was to my hon. Friend, I see no reason why he should not publish it himself.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Is not it clear that it would be absurd to wait until after 1st January, 1973, to do something about cotton yarn quotas especially in view of the high level of unemployment in Lancashire? Will not the right hon. Gentleman therefore act now to ensure that quotas on cotton yarn are retained on 1st January, 1973?

Mr. Noble: I cannot promise to act on this subject now, but we are actively discussing these matters with the Committee.

IRAQ PETROLEUM COMPANY

Mr. Benn: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the nationalisation of the Iraq Petroleum Company.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): On 1st June the Iraq Government announced the nationalisation of the Iraq Petroleum Company in Iraq. Shortly thereafter the Syrian Government announced similar action against the IPC pipeline and installations in Syria in sympathy with the action of the Iraq Government.
On 17th May the Iraq Government put forward to the Iraq Petroleum Company a demand that it should increase production rates in North Iraq and settle the long-outstanding issues between the two sides, and requested compliance within two weeks. On 31st May the company put forward counter-proposals, which were rejected. The Iraq Government proceeded to nationalisation the following day without further negotiation.
The Government regret the lack of prior notification by the Iraq and Syrian Governments. The Government also hope that the Iraq and Syrian Governments will make provision for prompt, adequate and effective compensation to the Iraq Petroleum Company and that a solution to the dispute between the Iraq Government and the Iraq Petroleum Company can still be found which will prove acceptable to all parties. The Government naturally look to the Iraq and Syrian Governments to ensure the safety of the British employees of the IPC in Iraq and Syria.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Can he confirm that the Government have no objection in principle to nationalisation and that their concern is about compensation for the assets owned? Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent we are dependent on oil from these sources and what effect on oil supplies and prices is now expected? What talks has the right hon. Gentleman had with the American, French and Netherlands

Governments? What is the legal position of oil which might be being exported pending settlement of the compensation claim? Will the right hon. Gentleman keep the House informed?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: On the question of nationalisation, it is better that I should not say anything until the industry has had a further chance to consider the legal position, about which I gather there are some doubts, concerning the nationalisation action. The United Kingdom takes 3½ per cent. of its supplies from Iraq. The European figure is 9 per cent. I had some preliminary talks with the French and the Americans in Berlin two days ago. We hope to have a further meeting on Thursday. As for the export of oil from Iraq, I gather that none at present is being exported through the pipeline.

Mr. Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that compensation for the former sequestration of a large part of the concessions has not been paid? Does my right hon. Friend expect that in the next two years compensation will be paid for the nationalisation of the Kirkuk oilfield?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I await the outcome of the meeting that the industry is having in the next day or two and the meeting of the four Governments mainly concerned.

Mr. Kaufman: In view of this latest example of the utter unreliability of these countries, will the Government now abandon their policy of appeasing these countries, which the Foreign Office has been so abjectly pursuing for so many years?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir, if the hon. Gentleman's party will abandon nationalisation.

Mr. Tugendhat: Will my right hon. Friend, in his consideration of these matters, maintain close contact with the French Government especially? This is an industry in which we are in partnership with the French, and we hope that our new-found friendship with the French will extend to oil matters, which it has not done in the past?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I had a preliminary talk with M. Schumann in Berlin, and we shall follow this up on Thursday.

BEEF (PRICES AND IMPORT DUTIES)

Mr. Alfred Morris: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the EEC suspension of import duties on beef and the effect of this on meat prices in this country.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): The EEC has suspended its import duties on beef in response to increasing prices there. After consulting our major preferential overseas suppliers we shall be similarly suspending our import duties on fresh, chilled and frozen beef and veal. An order is being laid to become effective at midnight tomorrow, 6th June.
The recent increase in beef prices here has essentially been the result of the worldwide shortage of beef combined with the fact that domestic supplies are currently at a seasonally low level. But those should soon increase as more grass-fattened cattle become available. It is in the best interests of producers and traders as well as of consumers that unfair advantage should not be taken of recent price movements. The Government are naturally very concerned and will continue to keep the situation under close review.

Mr. Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the anxiety among meat traders is matched by the anger among British housewives? Is he aware also that there are millions in the low income groups who feel that they are now being priced out of the meat market? Will he urgently consider what further action he can take, by preference, through genuine international agreement, to stop or at least to stem the flood of beef exports from this country?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman must realise that it is Community policy, while we are still outside the Community, which is bringing about the present situation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Had right hon. and hon. Members opposite, who support a world market situation, taken the correct steps to ensure that there were adequate supplies of beef in this country, we should not be in this muddle today.

Sir Robin Turton: Does not the present situation present us with an opportunity

to restrict British exports of meat to carcase meat and so avoid having to send animals abroad for very long journeys in defiance of the Balfour Assurances?

Mr. Prior: If there are cases of defiance of the Balfour Assurances, we take them up, and we shall continue to do so. As for exports generally, we have to be careful that in banning or controlling exports from this country we do not merely divert what would be imports to this country from countries like Ireland and the Argentine, causing them to turn right instead of left as they come up the Channel. We are concerned to see that we have the maximum supply of beef in this country.

Mr. Peart: May I ask the Minister what action he took about the decision of the European Commission to make its stand on duties? Surely the British Government must have made some protest, because it is due to the action of the Community and of the Commission that they will have supplies diverted from this country?
Apart from that, is it not a fact that for a long time the right hon. Gentleman has encouraged a high price policy? Is he aware that that policy is opposite to that advocated by the Prime Minister at the last General Election, when he dishonestly said to the British housewife that he was going to reduce prices? What action is the right hon. Gentleman going to take now, not only about supplies but also to control prices?

Mr. Prior: If I may answer the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question first, what the Government and I have consistently supported is a proper price for British agriculture which enables it to expand production. That is what we did not have all through the 'sixties, and that is the problem. Since we have been in office there has been a considerable expansion of beef production in this country, which is what we want.
The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is that we would have preferred the Community to remove its tariff in stages, instead of all at once. We made representations to that effect, but we are outside the Community now. We are in the position which the right hon. Gentleman wants us to be in, and I think that is the wrong position.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time the Labour Party realised that it takes time for animals to grow into beef, and that the position today is the result of the inadequate encouragement given by hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in power? Could my right hon. Friend give the figures for calf slaughterings? Do they not compare favourably with the position in 1969–70?

Mr. Prior: The answer is in two parts. First, beef production is now expanding at a record rate of about 50,000 tons a year, which is very satisfactory. If one looks at the figures for calf slaughterings, which are of great importance for future beef supplies, one sees that they fell from 471,000 in 1968–69 to a forecasted figure for 1972–73 of 180,000. That is the best indication that one could have.

Mr. John Morris: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it takes two years for beef to become ready for market, was he not aware that the action of the European Community would accentuate the situation? What plans did he have to deal with the situation? Is not his statement today a confession that his representations were not listened to? Will not prices continue to rise? Has not the right hon. Gentleman all along been an evangelist for high prices? Does he now blame the workers for seeking justice when they see the value of their wages going down and not up?

Mr. Prior: There is a good deal of difference between wishing to see a price which enables expansion to take place and wishing to see a price which is unrealistic in terms of production, which is what is happening now. There will not be an expansion in a commodity like beef unless there is long-term confidence in the agriculture industry.
If the right hon. Gentleman consults his farming constituents, they will tell him a different story on what they feel about prospects for the future compared with two years ago. What is important for the housewife and for this country is that we should not be at the mercy of fluctuations in world demand but should

come to depend much more on our own resources, which we shall in future.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is it not a simple fact of nature that it takes two years to get beef from the farmer to the butcher's slab? If, therefore, there be any shortfall in supplies now it is directly, and only, attributable to the policies of two years ago.

Mr. Prior: From my knowledge of agriculture, it is a minimum of two years, and really it is considerably longer than that. All I say to my hon. Friend is that I believe this to be a temporary situation and that within a few weeks we should be seeing a very different story.
We have had a Private Notice Question today on the subject of increased beef prices. I was hoping that we might have had a Private Notice Question from the Opposition on the decline in butter prices.

Mr. Ewing: If the world shortage is so acute, how is it that the right hon. Gentleman did not foresee what happened over the weekend, and why did he not take action more quickly to deal with the situation? Will he be offering his resignation as a result of this recent failure in a long line of failures on his part?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Community has acted from today. The reduction in tariffs takes place from today and we are reducing our tariffs from tomorrow. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can substantiate the accusation that we have not acted quickly.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the seriousness of the matter and the fact that urgent action ought to be taken, if the usual channels agree to switch today's business in order to discuss the question of meat supplies and prices would you agree to the House having an immediate debate on those matters?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

DEATH OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF WINDSOR

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to move a manuscript Motion, a copy of which has been made available to you and copies of which are also now in the Vote Office. The terms of the Motion are as follows:
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty on the death of His Royal Highness the Duke of Windsor, expressing the deep sympathy which this House extends to Her Majesty and to all members of his family on their grievous loss, and recording grateful remembrance of his devoted service to his country and to the British Empire.

Mr. Speaker: The House will be aware that the Motion which the Prime Minister asks leave to move is a substantive one which, according to the rules of the House, should have been placed on the Order Paper today to enable it to be moved tomorrow. Nevertheless, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members would not wish to proceed with other business before passing at the earliest possible moment a Motion expressing our sympathy with Her Majesty on the sad loss which she and other members of the Royal Family have sustained. I assure the House that there are precedents for this course of action.

Mr. William Hamilton: May I have clarification, Mr. Speaker? Do I understand that the Motion will be on the Order Paper tomorrow and will be debatable at 3.30 p.m.?

Mr. Speaker: No. The suggestion is that the Motion should be moved today.

Mr. William Hamilton: In that case, is it debatable now?

Mr. Speaker: It will be debatable. I intervened in the Prime Minister's moving of the Motion. I take it that the Prime Minister has the agreement of the House to proceed.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Prime Minister: Events conspired to make His Royal Highness the Duke of Windsor a historical figure long before his death in Paris last week. For 35 years he had lived outside this country.

and for more than 25 years he had taken no active part in public affairs, but his passing re-awakened many memories for those of us old enough to recall him first as Prince of Wales and then as King.
The Duke of Windsor was one of the few remaining members of the Royal Family who knew and remembered Queen Victoria. He was born in 1894, amidst what my predecessor Sir Winston Churchill called
the august, unchallenged and tranquil glories of the Victorian era".
From the moment of his birth it was apparent that in the fullness of time he would succeed to Queen Victoria's Throne.
Prince Edward made his first important appearance on the public stage in 1911, first at his father's Coronation, and shortly after when he himself was invested Prince of Wales at Caernarvon Castle, in a ceremony which was revived nearly 60 years later for his great-nephew.
At the beginning of the 1914–18 War, the Prince joined the Army, and served for much of the war on the Western Front. Though his military duties were inevitably circumscribed by the Army's reluctance to expose the heir apparent to the risk of capture by the enemy, he came under fire, and acquitted himself honourably and bravely.
Even more important, perhaps, he underwent the experience of sharing the rigours and miseries of war with many of his future subjects. It may be that it was this experience which prompted his evident determination, after the war, to see and be seen for himself, to go out to meet men and women of all sorts and conditions, not just at home in Britain but in all parts of his father's Empire.
A Prince of Wales, less tied by official responsibilities than the Sovereign, is freer to move about and meet people. Mr. Lloyd George, anxious to consolidate the sense of imperial comradeship engendered in the war, conceived a design for a series of tours by the Prince of Wales to all parts of the British Empire. The Prince of Wales welcomed the plan, and King George V approved it. Between 1919 and 1925 the Prince undertook a succession of arduous visits which led him across all the Dominions and to most of the colonies of the British Empire.
At home, in the intervals between these tours, he began to take an increasing share of the duties of the Royal Family, particularly after his father's serious illness in 1928. In this country, as in the Dominions, he was not content to confine himself to the formal ceremonies of Royal occasions. As the depression deepened, he made it his business to visit the communities which were most affected. There he was able to meet for himself the men and women who were thrown out of employment, to understand at first hand the plight of their families, and to bring them, if not hope, at least a message of sympathy, and with it the reassurance that they were not forgotten.
There must be many men and women on Tyneside, in Liverpool, in South Wales, who are remembering today the slight, rather shy figure who came briefly into their lives, and sometimes into their homes, during those grim years. Nor was his concern merely that of a passing visitor. In particular, his conscience and compassion were roused by the appalling housing conditions in the slums which he visited, and he lent his support to a variety of projects in the field of social service.
In all that he did during these years, it was the Prince of Wales's constant purpose to make the monarchy less remote, less formal, more accessible, more closely enmeshed in the social fabric of the country. To some at the time he may have seemed to be going too far and too fast; but for many of my own generation, growing up in the 1930s, his approach evoked a strong popular response. We felt that he was pointing the way to a type of monarchy which could meet the needs of our time.
Thus, when the Prince of Wales succeeded to the throne as King Edward VIII at the beginning of 1936, hopes were set high for his reign. Our sadness, when it came to an end so soon, was correspondingly deep and heartfelt.
Of the events that led to King Edward's abdication the House will not expect me to speak on this occasion. Deep feelings were aroused at the time, and their echoes have not yet entirely died away. The events have been described in various accounts by many of the principal people intimately concerned. What emerges from all these accounts is the

dignity with which the King comported himself, and the strength of his determination to avoid, so far as circumstances allowed, damage to the institution of monarchy.
Both qualities were displayed in the broadcast to the nation after he had ceased to be King—straightforward, moving in its very simplicity, and enlivened with the occasional flash of Churchillian colour.
In that broadcast the Duke of Windsor pledged himself to serve his country in his new station, if called upon to do so. That call came, within a few years; and once again, with an over-riding sense of duty, he answered it. From 1941 to 1945 he served as Governor of the Bahamas. But that was to be the last of his public duties, and from then on he and the Duchess of Windsor have lived an entirely private life in America or in France.
But he never ceased to take the same active, intelligent and well-informed interest in the affairs of his country that he had taken ever since he came to manhood. That I myself found on the one occasion on which I had the opportunity to meet him.
Looking back on his life, there is much for which his country has reason to remember him with pride and gratitude. The British constitutional system and social structure have the ability and the flexibility to absorb and adapt themselves to great changes. It was this that made it possible for the institution of monarchy in this country to survive the shock of King Edward's abdication. But we owe that flexibility to the wisdom of those who, over the generations, have recognised the need for change which respects, but is not fettered by, tradition.
King Edward was such a man. He was brought up in the constitutional traditions of his country, and he inherited from his father a strong sense of duty to his people. But he saw how the monarchy must adapt itself if it was to respond to the needs and problems of his own generation, and he led his own public life in accordance with that vision.
I do not doubt that by his conduct as Prince of Wales and as King he pointed the way to a form of monarchy which today is more in tune with the times than would have been thought possible 50 years ago when he embarked upon his


public life. Thus he helped to lay the foundations for the strength of the monarchy today, and for the respect and affection in which the institution and the person of the Sovereign are held.
Today, then, we send a message with our humble duty to the Queen, which expresses at once our sadness in her bereavement and our gratitude for the debt the nation owes him.
But the other thought in the minds of so many in this House today will be of the wife for whose love King Edward was content to give up his patrimony and who has repaid his devotion with an equal loyalty, companionship, and love. His death is, above all, her loss, and to her the House will wish to extend its profound sympathy.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely, today, when this matter is brought before the House, specific mention should have been made in the Motion of the person who will miss the Duke most.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order for the Chair.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I should like to join the Prime Minister in the tribute which he has paid to the Duke of Windsor, King Edward the VIII. While it is true that so much contemporary comment, and part of his place in history and in legend, will surround the events of December, 1936, the right hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to His Royal Highness's sterling service to his nation, his people and the Commonwealth.
In a very real sense, he bridged the generations from the Victorian age into which he was born to the hard-hit, apparently cynical, bewildered post-war world. In so doing, he created a royal legend. If informality was his style, service was his inspiration. Unlike his royal grandfather, who had been Prince of Wales for a very long time, he saw his princely youth and pleasure cut short by war. In that war, unlike any of his recent predecessors he met and served on intimate terms with his own people.
The links then forged were never broken. A new relationship between throne and people had been created—a relationship which was sensed by those

he met on his tours of the distressed areas, sensed above all by this Welsh wartime comrades in the dole queues, if not by the insensitive establishment of those years, when, out of the depths of his heart and compassion, he said, as though it were a royal command," Something will be done."
Those of us who witnessed the lying-in-state last week were perhaps impressed most by the floral tributes of the humblest of his admirers, expressing simple loyalty and affection. Among them was the tribute from the North-East, roses with a card reading:
Washington County Durham. We lined the route for the Prince of Wales touring the distressed areas.
As he bridged the generations, as he sought to bridge the gulf between the seeming complacency of the capital and the forgotten men of the dole queues, so, as Prince of Wales, he dedicated himself to strengthening the links of Empire and Commonwealth.
As heir to the throne, he envisaged the crown he was to inherit not as that of England or the United Kingdom but of a far-flung community of peoples, each of whom he came to know as his own people. He was a young man when the enactment of the Statute of Westminster threw its light on the Commonwealth that was to be, and when he died last week we mourned the last surviving King-Emperor. History, wiser and more percipient than his contemporaries, will record how much the Commonwealth we know today owes to his dedication and devotion in that last age of Empire.
Very few hon. Members in the House today could have known him personally as Prince of Wales or as King, and not many more of us had the opportunity of meeting with him in his years abroad. The Prime Minister referred to his experience. I had the privilege nearly 20 years ago in New York—I wish to place this on record—of meeting him and his gracious lady, the Duchess of Windsor, and realising how deeply concerned he was to extract from any of his fellow countrymen the last morsel of information about conditions in Britain and the conditions of all whom to the end he regarded as his people.
Of the tragic, moving and poignant events of December, 1936, much has been spoken and still more written in the past


few days. Let us not add to them nor diminish them. Royally he chose, and in his choice he rejected any easy way out that there might have been for him. His decision was absolute and irrevocable, and the disclosures of the past few days have demonstrated the rôle of Church and State, and not least the rôle of the Fourth Estate.
History, even more than those who today mourn his death, will pass the final judgment on them, but it will equally record the spontaneous tributes to his memory, and above all to his dedication, from all the estates of the realm, including this House, and, above all, from the people he served. Perhaps it will record the personal tragedy; that it was only when he had passed from us that these tributes could be paid, and that he could never know the respect and affection in which he was so widely held by his people.
On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I endorse the expressions of sympathy which have been made to the Duchess of Windsor. We all welcome the fact that she has felt able to be in Britain to hear and sense the feelings of our people, and we are all appreciative of the dignity she has shown, not only in these tragic days but over all the years. We hope that she will feel free at any time to come among and freely communicate with the people whom her husband, Prince of Wales, King, and Duke, lived to serve.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: This afternoon at least the controversy of the years gives way to the sadness of the moment and we salute a man who, as Prince of Wales, and King Edward VIII, gave dedicated service to this country.
Whether in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, Africa, South America or throughout the United Kingdom, he was a remarkable Royal ambassador who, by his warmth and simplicity of approach, ensured that he would be vividly remembered in many parts of the world.
For me it was a moving experience the day after he died to go into the great auditorium of Capetown University and see dominating the hall a portrait of the Prince of Wales, as he was, when Chan-

cellor of that University; and it was a sign of the very close links which he forged over all those years that its Vice-Chancellor was at his funeral service this morning.
It is useless to pretend that his life was not shot through with sadness. However, there were two other qualities which one could discern when one met him, as I did on the one occasion when I had the privilege to meet him. The first was his deep and abiding love for his country; indeed, a country which had once been his to rule. Linked with that was his continuing concern for the good of his people which, in the 'thirties, was expressed by the compassion he showed for those of his subjects who were unemployed, and which alas caused him to run foul of the political establishment of the day. There are many who feel that those qualities might have been put to greater service following his abdication.
The whole course of his career, of course, turned on the love which he deeply felt for the lady whom he wished to marry. The second quality, therefore, which was clear was that that was no transitory love. Nor was it misplaced, for it was returned in full measure during the sublimely happy marriage which they enjoyed for the 35 years they shared their lives.
He passed his self-imposed exile without bitterness and with great dignity. That it was tragic cannot be denied, and much of it might have been avoided. But today we express our gratitude for the services he gave, and our sympathy is extended to his family. I would have hoped that it might have been possible to mention his widow by name in the Motion which we shall pass, for not only does our sympathy go out to his family but in particular it goes out to his widow whose sadness has been shared by many in this country and whose composure and dignity have won our deep respect.

Sir Robin Turton: As one of the nine hon. Members who served in Parliament in the reign of King Edward VIII, I wish to add my tribute in support of the Motion.
I remember well that gloomy December day when Stanley Baldwin came to the House with a message from the King and how, as backbenchers, after weeks of


rumour and gossip, we were stunned and shocked with disappointment. The feeling of most of the House in those days was best put, as was often the case at that time, by Winston Churchill who, speaking on that occasion, said:
In this Prince there were discerned qualities of courage, of simplicity, of sympathy, and above all, of sincerity, qualities rare and precious, which might have made his reign glorious in the annals of this ancient monarchy. It is the acme of tragedy that these very virtues should in the private sphere have led only to this melancholy and bitter conclusion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1936; Vol. 318, c. 2191.]
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition have spoken of his great promise when Prince of Wales. In this connection I will mention his courage in war and the care which he showed for ex-Servicemen after the war, along with his deep and intense sympathy with the human problems of mass unemployment.
I recall the success of his Empire tours. I remember going to South America 20 years after he had been there. People were still talking of the charm and friendship which had shone around him where-ever he went. Perhaps Winston Churchill left out one of the great qualities of his life, a quality which was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, I refer to the motto of the Prince of Wales, Ich Dien. This quality, of service to his country was the motivating purpose throughout his life, and I remember that when he made his speech on his accession he said:
A king can perform no higher function than that of service.
It is sad that perhaps the greatest service he gave was his quiet departure, leaving this country and the Throne to his brother, who, as he said in his abdication broadcast
has the one matchless blessing enjoyed by so many of you and not bestowed on me—a happy home with his wife and children.
Some hon. Members will recall the final passage in his message of abdication in which he said:
I take my leave in the confident hope that the course which I have thought it right to follow is that which is best for the stability of the Throne and Empire, and the happiness of my people.
Time has vindicated his hopes and his action, and today we send our respectful and humble sympathy to the woman, his widow, who stood by him throughout

those years, and his niece, our beloved Queen. At long last, after his journeys abroad, he has come home to his country and people that throughout his life he served.

Mr. Edward Milne: I apologise for intervening on what is a formal occasion. I am certain that the Prime Minister will not misunderstand me when I say that we have listened to an address with a certain degree of hypocrisy attached to it. In the last analysis it was the House that sent the person whom we are mourning today into exile.
When we talk about bridging the gap between the Victorian era and the present day, we can only look back at the wasted opportunity that our predecessors were presented with in coming to the decision they did. There is no sense now in praising and paying tribute to a monarch that the House exiled when the consequences of that decision are being visited on our people.
The Prime Minister mentioned in his moving tribute, as I think most of us who lived throughout the era of the 'thirties realised last week, that the world had suddenly become a poorer place. What was witnessed in the House in the 1930s was a clash between the people of Britain and the Establishment that was supposed to represent them at that time.
The Prime Minister spoke about tributes from Tyneside, the distressed areas and the dispossessed people of Britain. History will record the fact that the greatest voice the dispossessed of Britain had in the 'thirties was stilled on the night when the person we are mourning made his departure speech. An opportunity for the advancement of this nation was lost, and the Prime Minister of the day, who in the previous year had misled the British people in a General Election, was again to mislead them the following year.
I add my tribute to the person we are mourning and the widow he leaves behind I add the sincere tribute of the Tyneside and Northumberland working class, who fully understood the qualities of the person that we are mourning and not the hypocrisy with which his death has been attended.

Mr. William Hamilton: I hope that the House will not think it amiss if I say in a sentence or two what


I think is in the minds of many people, politicians in all parties and in none, on this occasion.
The House can learn nothing from anybody about how best to speak of the dead—only when they are dead, in all too many cases. My views on the monarchy as an institution are well known, and I need not go into them today. However, I was deeply touched by the television interview which the late Duke gave to Kenneth Harris in 1969 and which was repeated last week. During that interview the late Duke made it clear that after he had made his abdication irrevocable he still wanted to serve this country.
Of the events of 1936, I simply say that, although there are no Ministers or ex-Ministers alive who were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the events of that time, there are those who are responsible, some of them still today, for events that took place in the subsequent 36 years up to 1972. Successive Governments since the end of the war had the opportunity to allow the Duke of Windsor to serve this country and to give of the talents to which the Prime Minister has rightly paid tribute. He was willing, but they refused.
There are many people who are sick and tired by the hypocrisy, humbug and cant in which we have engaged and which we have seen successive people in what we call the Establishment engage in during the last seven days. It is simply not good enough for us now to salve our consciences by paying these tributes after the man is dead.
Every speaker has paid tribute to the late Duke's widow. No woman could have behaved with more dignity and grace in face of the humiliations and indignities piled on her by the Government, the House and by our Governments over the last 36 years. We can sympathise today, but we should examine our consciences about the last 36 years.

Dame Irene Ward: I did not think of contributing to the debate and supporting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that nobody will misunderstand me if I say that I happened at the time of the abdication to be the Member of Parliament for Wall send-on-

Tyne, and I could not let someone who was not a Member of Parliament at that time and who comes from another part of the United Kingdom give expression to the sentiments that I know Tyneside and Durham would like to express on this occasion.
I met the Prince of Wales quite often in those days, and I remember well that when he came to Tyneside—the Tynesiders and those from Durham County are always tremendously loyal and appreciative of a sound, sympathetic, sensitive character—we all appreciated his charm and sensitivity.
I add one other thing to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). The Prince of Wales stood between two periods of our national life. He tried to serve the new period with the same distinction as many people in their own way had served the old period. I knew well some of his friends, and I remember being told at the time of the First World War how desperately the Prince of Wales felt when he went to France because, owing to his position, he had to have protection when so many of his friends had not and paid the price. That make a profound impression upon him which sustained him as well as engendering great sympathy in him throughout his career.
We all know how Tyneside felt at the time of the abdication. They are loyal people. I do not want to enter into any controversy but I felt that Tyneside might appreciate a speech from a Tynesider who was in the House of Commons, who knew the Prince when he visited Tyneside, and who liked and appreciated him. When one moves from one era to another, which in a way is unreal in national life, controversies will be aroused by a sympathetic, sensitive and devoted young man who wants to serve his country.
I can say no more than that. I felt that Tyneside would like a Tyneside voice of the time to express appreciation for his coming to Tyneside and for what he tried to do. We all feel desperately sorry that he was denied the opportunity to do what he wanted to do.

Mr. Dick Leonard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You ruled that the point raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was not a point of order. But would it be in


order to move an Amendment including the name of the Duchess of Windsor before the reference to the Royal Family? If that is in order, I should like to move such an Amendment formally.

Mr. Speaker: I think that that is a matter for me to decide. I have already had notice of a manuscript Amendment from the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), to insert in Motion, after the second reference to "Her Majesty", the words "to Her Grace the Duchess of Windsor". I think that it would be in accordance with the wishes of the House if I allowed that Amendment to be moved. Perhaps the hon. Member will move it formally.

Amendment made: s After the second reference to "Her Majesty", insert "to Her Grace the Duchess of Windsor".—[Mr. Pardoe.]

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the Motion carried nemine contradicente.

Resolved,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty on the death of His Royal Highness the Duke of Windsor, expressing the deep sympathy which this House extends to Her Majesty, to Her Grace the Duchess of Windsor and to all members of his family on their grievous loss, and recording grateful remembrance of his devoted service to his country and to the British Empire.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's House hold.

BRITISH LIBRARY BILL [Lords]

Referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

CHILDREN BILL [Lords]

Referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of Radio and Television in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouth shire, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

20TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered,

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL TRAINING

Mr. Speaker: Before calling upon the right hon. Gentleman to move the Motion, I want to inform the House that I have selected the Amendment in the names of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Reg Prentice: I beg to move,
That this House, believing that continued improvement in the quality and quantity of industrial training is vital to the national economy, urges Her Majesty's Government drastically to revise those parts of their statement 'Training for the Future' which have been the subject of severely critical comments from the industrial training boards and others involved in the work of training, and, in particular, to withdraw their proposal to abolish the levy/grant system which has provided the main incentive for the improvements which have taken place since 1964.
The Opposition have chosen this subject today because we are deeply concerned about the Government's policy on training which is set out in the statement "Training for the Future". In our view, if the central proposals of this policy statement are implemented, it is likely to lead to less training being carried out in this country, to less enforcement of good training standards, and to fewer young workers being given day release or block release to courses in further education. This is likely to mean even worse prospects than at present for young persons leaving school and entering industry.
These proposals seem to belong to the "lame duck" period of the Government's policy formation but, unlike other parts of this policy—if we are to judge by the terms of the Amendment on the Order Paper—this part of the lame duck policy is one to which the Government are still sticking, as of today. The central proposals in this document represent a surrender to pressure from some selfish groups of employers who are anxious to avoid carrying out their share of the nation's training effort. By that I mean


not all employers but certain groups of employers. I am afraid that that pressure has been vigorously supported by some of the most right-wing elements on the Government benches.
To pursue these policies would be bad enough at any time but would be particularly dangerous against a background of over 900,000 registered unemployed, including over 50,000 young people under the age of 18 registered as unemployed at present. The Government are proposing to weaken the inducements and incentives to carry out training at a time when the existing inducements and incentives are obviously proving inadequate. If anyone doubts that they are proving inadequate, let me give the House one figure from the engineering industry alone. In the last 12 months there has been a fall of 5 per cent. in the numbers employed in the engineering industry. During the same period there has been a fall of about 20 per cent. in the industry's training effort. This is a situation which is making prospects worse for those who are unemployed and particularly for young persons unemployed. It means that many of the young people who are employed are employed in jobs which lack the training facilities and the prospects for further education for the development of their skills, which they should have, and it means that the nation is at present failing to build up these skills that it will need for future periods of economic growth.
It is with some regret that one has to approach this problem in such a partisan way, because the subject has been a bipartisan subject on the whole ever since 1964. The Industrial Training Act, 1964, was introduced by a Conservative Government. It was introduced by that Government in their death-bed repentence period just before the 1964 General Election and after some years of pressure by many of us on this side of the House in favour of some reform of this kind. Nevertheless, it was introduced by that Government with all-party support, and it fell to be implemented very largely by the Labour Government.
But one thing on which we can all agree is that in the years since 1964, even allowing for the decline of the last 12 months or so because of the unemployment situation, on the whole there has

been a considerable improvement in both the quantity and the quality of industrial training in this country. Indeed, the first annex to the Government's consultative document says this, and we have no need to quarrel with it. Not only has there been a general increase in the numbers under training and a general improvement in many of the standards set, but in particular areas in which improvement has been long overdue there has been a revolutionary improvement. There has been an enormous expansion in the number of small firms taking part in group training schemes. There has been considerable expansion in the numbers of full and part-time training officers within industry. There have been new concepts of training which have overtaken some of the outdated strait-jackets of the old forms of single craft apprenticeships. The modular system of the engineering industry training board is an example of this. There have been improvements in management and supervisory training and a welcome growth of shop steward training and many other forms of training which have grown as a direct result of the stimulus of the Act.
Our quarrel with Government today is not that there is no need for a review. At this date there is a need to review the progress of the Act and to identify areas in which changes are needed. We would agree with some of the changes put forward. Our main quarrel with the Government is that they propose to take away the main motive force behind the progress that has taken place since 1964. This main motive force is the levy/grant system, a system by which every one of the 27 training boards has a statutory duty to impose a levy on firms within their industry and then the duty of paying to them grants according to the approved training which they carry out.
Everyone has recognised that before 1964 we had a situation in which some firms in this country were doing their share of training—some doing more than their share—and some firms in British industry were carrying out training which was the best in the world; but some were falling short of what was required. Some firms were not carrying out training at all or were carrying out what passed for training but was, in fact, a method in


which apprentices and other trainees were used as cheap labour. Many firms not doing their share of training preferred and often found it profitable to poach away skilled workers from other firms, and this led to the clear need for a "carrot and stick" system of training levies and grants from the training boards.
The proposal to which we take particular exception in the consultative document is the proposal to abolish this system with effect from 1973. I deliberately use the word "abolish". I beg the Secretary of State not to fudge this issue. His document tends to fudge it. The document says that this is not a firm proposal but that it is a consultative proposal, and that if it is carried through it will mean the removal of the statutory requirement to impose the levy but the training boards can continue with the levy system after that date if they can obtain a clear consensus of the firms in their industry. I put it to the House that this is absurd. If the Government of the day take away the compulsion to pay a particular tax no group of citizens, no matter how high-minded they may be, will voluntarily impose that tax upon themselves.
I have had a great many discussions in recent weeks about this problem with people in industry and I find overwhelmingly that it is assumed, first, that this is not a consultative proposal but that the Government have made up their mind about it, and, second, that the levy will be abolished, not phased out, from 1973. I have here a small fraction of the written submissions made to the Secretary of State about this matter. Many of these make the point—I quote from the submission of the Food Drink and Tobacco Industry Training Board—
By stating a positive end-point of 1972/3 for application of levy/grant, the paper has pre-empted a natural phasing out—so that in this respect it is not really consultative. Industry now positively expects cessation in 1972/3. It would clearly, therefore, not be possible to reverse this with 'a clear consensus in favour of this course within the industry'.
In other words, the proposition in the document is to take away the main incentive which has operated since 1964. At best this proposal seems to rest on a naive assumption that attitudes have changed so radically among employers since 1964 that an incentive of this kind

is no longer necessary. At worst it is a surrender to the kind of pressure I have described, a surrender for purely doctrinaire purposes.
I said a moment ago that I had a number of copies of submissions made to the Secretary of State. For the sake of brevity I will refrain from quoting many of them, but I would like to quote three of the training boards, and I select these three because they are very different industries both in the size and the nature of their problems. On the question of the levy the Engineering Industry Training Board, the largest of the boards, says:
The proposal for an abrupt cessation of the levy/grant mechanism after 1972–73, and its replacement by a system of selective grants, at a substantially reduced level, from central funds, will not secure the advances which have been made. If implemented, this proposal will result in a serious reduction in the industry's training effort.
A much smaller board, the Furniture and Timber Training Board, says:
The Board does not welcome the immediate winding-up of the levy/grant system after 1972–73. It believes that this aspect of the Government's plan will have particularly adverse effects on further education services and will undermine the training infrastructure so carefully built up over the last seven years.
I would like to quote an extract from the Distributive Industry Training Board's submission:
The Board considered very carefully if there were any alternative incentives which could be as effective as the incentive of the levy/grant system but decided at this stage in the training in Distribution, there is no satisfactory alternative.
It is significant that these comments are made by industrial training boards comprising employers' representatives, trade union representatives and representatives of the industrial services. If the comment were made only by trade unionists and educationists they might have been much more outspoken and extreme than the comments which have emerged. Certainly, if the comments were made by the professional staffs of the boards they would in many cases have been much more outspoken and extreme. But these comments have had to be approved by the employers' representatives as well. I put it to hon. Members opposite, some of whom may have felt over the last year or two that they were representing employers in this country by criticising the industrial training board


system, that there is a clear division here between those employers, including some of the leading employers in some of our main industries, who take a broad view of the national interest and other employers who take a much narrower, selfish view of the situation.
Nor would I accept the idea that this is necessarily a split between large and small employers. I will make one further quotation, this time from the submission made to the Secretary of State by the National Advisory Committee for Group Training Associations in the Road Transport Industry. This submission represents the views of 2,800 small firms in the road transport industry. The submission says:
We do not agree with the view expressed in 'Training for the Future' that a permanent shift in attitudes to training has been achieved. The Committee believe that the quality and quantity of training will decrease considerably if the levy system is discontinued next year. Furthermore, we believe that there is a danger that if a different method of financing is adopted the situation will revert to that appertaining prior to 1964, when the more progressive firms had to carry more than their fair share of the Industry's training costs.
I could also quote the views of the TUC and many individual trade unions. I have here the views of the ILEA and other education authorities, as well as the views of the ATTI, representing teachers in technical colleges, who are intimately concerned with the work of industrial training. I have the views here also of the British Association for Commercial and Industrial Education which has played a leading part in these matters for so many years.
All of this informed opinion criticises the central proposal in the Government's document. None of these bodies is saying, and we on the Opposition benches are not saying, that there should not be changes in the levy system. Of course, these changes could include, and in many cases in recent years have included, some reduction in the original levels of the levy. If these decisions are made by the boards on their merits in relation to the problems of the particular industry no one will quarrel with them. But we are quarrelling with the Government's announcement, which would have the effect of abolishing the whole system with effect from 1973.
I would like briefly to make two points about the alternative system proposed in the document of selective grants coming from the Exchequer and administered by the National Training Agency. First, the sums that are suggested are hopelessly inadequate. The document proposes Government grants within the range of £25 million to £40 million as against a turnover now of over £200 million in the form of the levy/grant system. The administrative costs of the National Training Agency and the cost of the training advisory service, as I understand it, are to come out of that sum. These are estimated to amount at present to about £15 million. What is left after that is a derisory sum in relation to the training cost of industry. One calculation I have seen is that the engineering board alone in financing its first year off-the-job courses for apprentices could absorb the whole of the money that is left. Another calculation I have seen is that minimum requirements of the Road Transport Industry Training Board would absorb about 20 per cent. of the total grants available even though it covers only about 4 per cent. of the labour force of this country. If there were to be Government grants to measure up to what is required, it would be on a vastly increased scale compared with those proposed in the document. Even if the grants were on a much larger scale, they would still be no substitute for the present levy grant system.
The point about the levy grant system is that firms are automatically involved in training because they are automatically liable for the levy. The proposals for industrial training have to be considered at board level every year, and not hived off to somebody lower down in the management structure, because the finances of the company are engaged automatically through the payment of the levy. It becomes a matter of policy for a board to discover ways in which it can meet the requirements of industrial training so that it does not have a net loss. The engagement of industry and of top management at board level depends on the continuance of something similar to the levy system, and the grants proposed can never be an alternative to it.
I find myself in agreement with the document when it speaks about the case for a national training agency. Clearly, the industrial training boards cannot do


the whole job that is required; they cover about two thirds of the labour force at present and one-third is not covered by any of the boards. A great many overlapping problems are identified in the document, and these need to be covered by a stronger central authority than exists at the moment.
We are worried about the proposed divorce between the management of training and the management of employment services. The proposal is that the training agency should be "hived off" and that management employment services should be given within the Department. These two sets of problems are so enmeshed with each other that there is a need for some common authority—perhaps it could be called a national manpower board—to have ultimate control of the training system and of the employment services. There is also a need for what one would hope would become a growing system of manpower forecasting.
Secondly, we are worried about the status of the industry training boards as described in the document if and when these changes take effect. It appears that the boards are being demoted into merely advisory bodies with certain small functions. They may be important functions, but obviously the boards are not intended to be as powerful as they are at present. We feel that a great deal will be lost if changes of this kind take effect. We need a national training agency, but it must work in partnership with the board. The boards need to have a big enough job to do to attract top people on both sides of the industry.
One of the great merits of the industrial training boards is that they have been bodies on which leaders from the employers and the trade unions in each industry have met together in equal numbers—not merely to consult with each other and to give advice, but to make decisions which they are responsible for carrying out. This was an important step in the history of industrial relations, and something will be lost if this forum of joint action is reduced in status and importance.
I agree with the proposal to expand the Government training centres, which is very much overdue. The proposals in this respect are very welcome, though

hon. Members opposite will forgive me if I say that, in view of our experience of Conservative policy in this respect in the past, we shall believe them when we see them. Clearly, the expansion of facilities for retraining make sense only if this is part of a general strategy for restoring full employment. I appreciate that this is not another debate on unemployment, but the cruellist thing of all is to take a man out of the dole queue and raise his hopes by giving him a period of training and then, at the end of that training, to put him back in the dole queue. These proposals will command a measure of approval from the public and will meet with success only if they are related to a general strategy for full employment.
Another important matter to which I have already referred is the subject of further education. Many of us over the years have seen this subject in its educational context as well as in its industrial context. Part of the purpose of the operation of industrial training boards is that they should operate to extend day release and block release and other forms of education so that young people do not finish their education when they leave school. It is a continuing process. I have often made the point that it is as important to consider the educational situation of those who have left school at 15 or 16 as to consider the educational situation of those who stay on at university or other institutions of higher education.
The results educationally clearly have been disappointing. The industrial training board scheme has not had the impact many of us had hoped. In 1964 the Henniker-Heaton Report recommended the doubling of day release by 1970. In fact, the figures have moved as follows. For boys the figure in 1964 was 30·3 per cent. and in 1970 it rose to 38·3 per cent. For girls the figure is disgracefully low since over the same period it rose from 7·4 per cent. to only 9·8 per cent. It is becoming urgent to explore new techniques and perhaps we should take new statutory powers to ensure the effective expansion of part-time education for young people in this age group. Meanwhile, our case is that the withdrawal of the levy will be likely to make this aspect of the situation worse as well as to worsen the situation in industry itself.
The Secretary of State for Employment may say that this is a consultative document and there is nothing final about it. He may ask "Why take a partisan attitude this afternoon and divide the House?" Let me put our attitude in this context. We have deliberately timed this debate to take place almost at the end of the period of consultation between the Secretary of State and the interested parties in industry and in education, but it is still some weeks before the publication of the White Paper in which the Government will put their proposals in a more final form. On this matter, as in so many others, we feel that if there is to be a consultative process, then the House of Commons should be part of it. We feel that we should debate these matters before final decisions are made and that we should not simply be asked to comment on a fait accompli at a later stage.
The time span is particularly difficult because of peculiar timing by the Government. The Government, having announced in the Queen's Speech that they were about to produce a policy on this subject, then took over 18 months to produce the consultative document. They then gave employers, trade unions, educationists and others only four months in which to study the proposals and to make their comments. Yet within a matter of a few weeks we shall be seeing a White Paper containing the Government's final proposals. We have discussed the matter within these narrow limits and we would be glad if the Secretary of State would say that the Government mind is not made up on these central proposals. In the meantime we have no alternative but to judge the Government's intentions as set out in the consultative document.
If the Secretary of State were willing to accept our Motion and would promise to bring about the changes for which we have asked, there will be no need for us to divide the House. But the wording of the Government Amendment does not indicate that this is the line the Government will take. Therefore, we shall be bound to press our Motion to a Division tonight. This matter is far too important for the industrial future of Britain and for the future of many millions of our people and particularly young people for

it to be returned to the pressures of the market place. Therefore, we regard with some dismay the Government's intention to withdraw the incentives which have been given in recent years. For this reason, unless we are given the sort of assurances for which I asked a little earlier in my remarks, we shall press our criticisms in the Division Lobby.

4.50 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): I beg to move, in line 2, leave out from 'economy' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes Her Majesty's Government's recent actions, outlined in 'Training for the Future', to expand and improve Government training facilities, and further believes that the changes in the system of training boards proposed in the consultative document will not only provide the basis for overcoming the present difficulties but will also provide the increased opportunities for training so necessary for our national prosperity'.
In moving the Amendment, I make it clear—clearer perhaps than does the Motion or, indeed, did the closing words of the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice)—that we are debating policies falling into two parts—first, some definite proposals which are already being put into action to expand and improve Government training facilities, and, secondly, a plan for discussion, "Training for the Future", dealing with the future of industrial training.
The Government published "Training for the Future" as a consultative document on 1st February and invited comments from all concerned with industrial training by the end of May. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall pay very close attention to the views he expressed and to those which will be expressed by others in the debate, as we are paying close attention to the very large number of comments which we have received from every quarter, not only from large organisations such as the TUC and the CBI, but from firms and a number of private individuals, including teachers, covering every aspect of our proposals.
It would be wrong if I did not take this opportunity to express the Government's gratitude to all those who have taken part and are taking part in this consultative process. They have examined the proposals with very great care and, as


I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit, have put a great deal of work into preparing their comments and suggestions.
I think the trouble which has been taken shows two things—first, what an important subject this is, and, secondly, how valuable consultations of this kind can be, based as they are on firm proposals by the Government but leaving the gate open for changes and modifications and for alternative proposals to be put forward. I am not sure that this makes the Government's task easier or narrows the range of possible choices. The advice we have received has been fairly diverse and there is not a complete measure of agreement even from within one organisation. All the same, there is a considerable degree of unanimity on the ends we are seeking to achieve. I do not think that anyone has disagreed that our objective, however it may be achieved, must be to extend the quantity and improve the quality of our industrial training in all its aspects.
First, I turn to "Training for the Future" as a whole. It was based on a fundamental review of the whole system of industrial training and had two principles, collective and individual. The first is the basis that economic growth to the extent we require it and are determined to have it must and will increasingly depend in future on an adequate supply of properly trained manpower. The second is that industrial training has a vital social purpose for people in giving them the opportunity to improve their prospects and to obtain greater satisfaction in their jobs.
As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, both require training not in skills which will not be needed but in skills which will be required. They require the maximum opportunity for development of individual skill and will require new training to meet the changing needs of our changing industry. Thus, "Training for the Future" fell into two parts—first, a firm decision to have a large development and expansion of Government training, and, secondly, proposals to be put forward for discussion on the widest possible basis for bringing up to date the system of training in industry.
I turn first to the training opportunities scheme. I understand the reason why,

but I am sorry that this is not mentioned in the Motion. However, we have included it in the Amendment. It envisages a massive increase in the facilities available and contains firm decisions to expand the Government's present vocational training scheme into a much more comprehensive and wide-ranging scheme which we have called the "training opportunities scheme". The target we have set is to have 100,000 men and women per year in training as soon as we can, reaching 60,000 to 70,000 a year in 1975.
The achievements so far might reassure the right hon. Gentleman, who seemed rather doubtful whether this target was obtainable. So far they are not too bad. Between October, 1964 and June, 1970, the number in training rose from 3,900 to 8,100, an increase of 4,200 in six years. Last month, 15,350 men and women were in training, an increase in the last two years of some 7,250. That is not a bad record and represents an equivalent figure of a throughput of some 30,000 men and women a year.
That is a rapid expansion but there is still a long way to go and demand is expanding even faster. It has more than doubled in the last 12 months and some Government training centre training courses, I am sorry to say, have waiting periods of over a year. That is why we launched last autumn a crash programme to set up another 3,000 places in the popular trades, which will start this coming autumn.
I do not think that anyone will disagree that in our plans for expansion and development it is important to remember not only those for whom the scheme is primarily devised but also one or two other factors. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the very small number of girls who are going to day-release schemes. It is important that the expansion and development of the training opportunities scheme should include more women generally. In the three years up to March, there has been an expansion from 323 in 1970 to 653 in 1971 to 2,405 in 1972. But the majority of these places are in colleges of further education, where some 64 per cent. of the places available are occupied by women. They are mostly commercial, although other courses are available and are being taken up. We have, of course, the further object of giving training opportunities to married


women who are seeking to return to employment.
The second factor which should not be omitted from the wider discussions is the need to do more to train the disabled, who can in fact be trained for almost any occupation which offers a chance of resettlement regardless of the level of skill for which they are suitable. Last month there were over 2,000 in training, and that represented an increase of 300 over a year ago.
The main body of those who will benefit from this expansion are those who, in one way or another and for whatever reason, have missed out. They will include those who, perhaps, failed to acquire skills immediately after leaving full-time education. Here the link with the educational system itself, the need to develop late developers, and the problems of raising the school leaving age, are all relevant. They would include those who, perhaps, mistook their first choice of career, or whose career prospects have been damaged by economic or technical change. They would include those who simply see an opportunity and want to take it to improve their skills and so better their prospects.
The new scheme is open to all those in work as well as—as at present—to the unemployed; but they must be willing to leave work for training, since training is full time under the scheme.
The range of courses will be wider than the vocational training scheme. These in the past concentrated mainly on craft skills. Now it is intended to cover the whole range of semi-skilled operations and crafts, clerical occupations, commercial, and even some professional and managerial, qualifications.
One of the new features will be courses not so much in training as of vocational further education.
It is not unreasonable to say that we have every hope of reaching the target of between 60,000 and 70,000 men and women per year by 1975. It is a question of doubling and more than doubling the present rate, but it within our capabilities.
It is also important to remember that numbers in training is not everything and that we should use all the available

resources of manpower intelligence to ensure that both the volume and the content of the courses offered match not only individual demand but also the best possible assessment of long-term employment prospects, and this means that there is need for very close links centrally and locally with other work of the Department of Employment.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures which he has given to be achieved by 1975 have already been attained by France with a lesser working force?

Mr. Macmillan: That may be, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman of the figures I have given. Under this part of the scheme, that is to say, individual training, the Government vocational training, we had in October, 1964, to June, 1970, an increase of 4,200, in six years; in the last two years we have had an increase of 7,250. I quote that as reason to believe that, having achieved a greater rate of increase, we can regard it as within our capabilities to build up to 60,000 to 70,000 men and women by 1975, and rising as soon as possible to a target of 100,000 a year.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend going to say anything of the criticisms of the consultative document to show whether we are going in the right direction? There would seem to be an immense amount of criticism to deal with.

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think that I can deal at length and in detail with the number of different criticisms and ideas which have been put forward, because that would destroy a part at least of the purpose of this debate, which is to enable me to hear further criticisms and details from this House, and I am trying to be quick because of the shorter time we have than we expected for this debate.
I will turn now to the second part of "Training for the Future" and the proposals for making changes in the present system of industrial training against the background of the need to reinforce and extend the range and scope of industrial training as a whole.
First, I would emphasise that these are consultative proposals, and no firm decisions have been taken—nor will they be till we have weighed and considered all the many suggestions from widely differing points of view which have been put to us during our consultations and, of course, in the speech by the right hon. Gentleman, and the views expressed in this debate. I am afraid that I must disappoint the right hon. Gentleman. As I said, no firm decisions have been taken; therefore I cannot say one way or another what will be the final outcome of our consultations.
They have been very extensive. Apart from those to which the right hon. Gentleman referred we have had some 800 written representations, and we are now judging and analysing these. There have been a large number of very useful meetings both ministerial and official. I have had very full discussions with the TUC, the CBI, the Central Training Council, and others, including some training boards. All training boards have been seen either by myself or by one of my colleagues, and next week I am meeting the chairmen of the training boards jointly. We have had a very full picture, therefore, of the reactions to our proposals—on that I can assure my hon. Friend.
The consultations have shown that, on the whole, the limitations of the training board system are acknowledged, without criticism of the boards, but as being inherent in the system itself. There is widespread agreement on the need to make some changes.
There is, equally, no doubt that the achievement of the boards has been considerable. Opinion varies about how deep and extensive it has been, but there has been a considerable change in the climate of opinion about training in British industry in the last few years, and the importance of training is much more widely recognised, and not simply among specialists and enthusiasts but also among top management and in board rooms.
There have been important advances in the quality of training in many fields. There was the introduction of the module system of training in engineering, and there have been important advances in the techniques of training in engineering. The boards have been of considerable

value in bringing together employers, trade unionists and educationists and getting them to think out together an industry's training needs and in working out plans to meet them.
Equally, the limitations of the boards have been shown by the review and, indeed, by consultations. It is quite impossible that they should cover the whole economy. They are most suitable for homogeneous industries, but more difficult for industries which have a very large number of small firms whose training needs are dissimilar. They are not altogether satisfactory for small firms. They do not deal with regional and local labour market needs; they cannot handle the problem of training people in declining industries for employment in other industries. That is a major gap to which I have already referred.
The problem we have is in considering changes which will be necessary so as to reconcile these two aspects of the boards' work and to reinforce their successes and to eliminate their difficulties. Many of these difficulties, as has become clear over the years, are associated with the levy/grant system, and "Training for the Future" proposes an end to the levy/grant system after 1972–73. I am very well aware that this is one of the most controversial points—indeed, the point of main controversy—in the consultative document. Many people on both sides of industry consider that the value of training has not yet been sufficiently widely accepted by employers in general and that some sort of financial stimulus is still needed. Many educationists fear that the ending of the levy/grant may lead to a falling-off in further education as well as in training particularly for young people.
It is fair to say that these views have been expressed in different ways with different degrees of force even among those who hold them, and that they are to some extent conditioned by the nature of the board, its successes and the opinion held of the board by the industry concerned. It is an exaggeration to suppose that, without the levy/grant, training in industry would collapse. The right hon. Member for East Ham, North referred to the engineering industry. He quoted a number of figures and made some suggestions.
What he was saying—and I will come to this later—was that the levy was important and not the grant, that it is the financial sanction that matters rather than the financial stimulus. That is a point of view but it is not one which emerges clearly from the lines of argument I have seen and read. Our consultations have shown that there are many—in the training boards, too—who do not see the levy/grant system as a permanent feature of our training system. As the right hon. Gentleman said, a number of boards were already moving towards phasing it out before the consultative document was published.
There is wide acceptance of the view that once the levy/grant has had a permanent impact it should be run down to get rid of the paper work and bureaucracy which is inevitable in its present form. Let me emphasise that in putting forward these two parts of the argument we have reached no firm decisions. I am aware of the deeply held views in some quarters that in some industries the levy/grant system should remain for a longer period. We do not underestimate the system's inherent difficulties and disadvantages which have led both to the move by some boards to phase it out and to the proposal to end it after 1972–73. We shall be considering the whole question again most carefully before reaching a decision.
"Training for the Future" accepts that if levy/grant is to be phased out there will still be a need for selective grants to stimulate certain key training activities. It suggests that £25 million to £40 million at current prices should be made available for this purpose and for the continuing work of the training boards. Many people have argued that this is not enough. Obviously it is difficult to calculate at all precisely how much might be needed while we still have no experience of the new system, and £25 million to £40 million is merely a broad preliminary estimate. It is roughly the equivalent of the present re-distributive effect of the levy/grant system.
If it is much higher—and the right hon. Gentleman quoted figures—this is an indication that without the levy/grant system firms will not do their own training, that they will have to be given grant and that the training will become

more dependent on outside grant rather than on in-house training by individual firms. The figures the right hon. Gentleman quoted and the argument he used showed that what is important to get people to train in his view and the view of those who follow his argument is the threat of the levy rather than the stimulus of the grant.
I am not necessarily quarreling with that. I am merely saying that it is a point which has to be taken into account in deciding what is most important in the system. It is something we are studying with great care. I do not think that enough attention has been given to which of those two elements does the good and which creates the difficulty.
I come to a brief word now about the National Training Agency—

Mr. James Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Macmillan: I would rather not give way. There is not much time and a number of hon. Members want to speak. The National Training Agency is a major proposal in "Training for the Future" designed to co-ordinate and supplement the work of the boards and provide them with finance and to run the Training Opportunities Scheme. I very much take the argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman that what is required is something in the nature of a national manpower board covering employment as well as training. I have a great deal of sympathy with this suggestion. It is important to maintain the closest possible links between training and the employment services. Whatever system we have, it has to be carefully run so that we do not sacrifice this.
It would be difficult to move to a national manpower board which was separate from my Department, at any rate at present. As was explained in "People and Jobs", one of the major tasks of the employment service at present is paying unemployment benefit and this must clearly remain within the Department as a function of Government.
This is not an idea which I would dismiss, but I would rather say that for the time being I do not regard it as immediately practicable and it should not there fore delay the creation of a national training agency in whatever form is decided is best. This is essential to the


extension and development of training generally, particularly to cover the areas now missed out.
At the end of his speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to the future rôle of training boards. I do not see these proposals as being any demotion of the boards. It is essential for the success of any new system that the boards should play a positive and constructive part in it, identifying, as they do, with the training needs of their industries and devising programmes to meet them.
I accept, too, that the staffing arrangements must be such that the boards have staff who are committed to them and responsible. They must not be liable to have staff taken away at a moment's notice or to have unsuitable staff foisted on to them. Inevitably during the review and the consultative period there is a degree of uncertainty among all those concerned with training. I hope that we can dispel the uncertainties as soon as possible
It is widely accepted throughout the training world that we have to take decisions quickly. We shall need time to give full consideration to the results of the consultative process which has thrown up a lot of problems. There are a large number of documents to study with great care. We will not waste any time, we will get on as fast as possible with a view to reaching a final decision. I still hope, if at all possible, to be able to announce our conclusions on the main issues before the House rises, with a view to introducing any legislation which may be necessary in the next Session.
In taking these decisions the Government's objective will be to lay the foundations for a new and improved system of industrial training which will make a vital contribution to our national prosperity in the years to come and which will be essential to the economic health of our nation.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu: All of us on both sides of the House will welcome what the Secretary of State has said about taking account of the views expressed in the debate and of the consultation outside on the second part of the main set of proposals in his consultative document. Nevertheless most of us on this side of the House will have

detected some bias in his summing up of the arguments about the current scheme—the levy/grant scheme in particular. This gave rise at any rate in my mind to a good deal of anxiety, for reasons which I will later explain.
Twelve years ago I opened a debate on apprentices for the Opposition by reading a letter I had received from a youth employment officer dealing with the then current outlook for young school leavers. I regret to say that once again under a Conservative Government boys and girls are leaving school facing the utter frustration of no employment and no possibility of training. We must never forget—there is a slightly distorted view in the consultative document which divides the needs of industry from the needs of individuals—that these two things areinter-dependent. We can, however, consider them as two aspects, the really national industrial need and the social requirements of young people. If I talk mainly of the former it must not be thought that I do not think that the latter is of equal importance.
I believe that the outstanding problem of our advanced industrial societies is to provide for young people coming into adult life a sense of purpose and worthwhile employment. There are serious signs in the attitude that young people are taking at present that we—and I mean not just this country but all the industrial countries—are failing disastrously.
The history of our national attitude to industrial training at all levels is of warnings unheeded by Governments lacking understanding and bemused by liberal economics. From the days of the Great Exhibition, which was some time after we had reached the zenith of our industrial power, scientists, engineers, educationists from Lyon Playfair to Lord Haldane and from Sidney Webb to Lord Eustace Percy and Sir Henry Tizard were warning the country of the inadequacy of our system of technical education and industrial training.
Report after report appeared, starting perhaps with the Second Report of the Commissioners of the Great Exhibition, going on to the great Royal Committees and Select Committees in the second half of the 19th century and then on to further reports after both world wars. Each of these reports compared us. what we were


doing in this area, unfavourably with what our competitors were doing. It is true that during most of this time and in most of these reports less attention was paid to workshop training, what is generally known as apprenticeship, until we come to the 1950s, when a number of reports and research studies were published demonstrating the shoddy fraud that most apprenticeship schemes really were. With some significant exceptions, our industry up to that time probably had—many people thought it and I will not deny it—the worst-educated managers and engineers and the worst-trained craftsmen of any advanced industrial country in the world. A lot of people believed that on this we must put the responsibility for our declining economic performance which has bedevilled Governments of all parties for so long.
The liberal economics which were behind the non-interventionist policy of the Governments of those times led to the attitude that "industry knows best". This received approval in the report "Training for Skill" published in 1958, which was the report of the Committee under the chairmanship of the present Lord President of the Council. There were significant signs soon afterwards that he was a reluctant signatory of the report and did not accept its complacency. Whether or not that was true, by 1962 the pressure of events and public debate had brought about a remarkable change which is best illustrated by quoting from paragraph 5 of the White Paper "Industrial Training: Government Proposals". This said:
A serious weakness in our present arrangements is that the amount and quality of industrial training are left to the unco-ordinated decisions of a large number of individual firms. These may lack the necessary economic incentive to invest in training people who, once trained, may leave them for other jobs. While the benefits of training are shared by all, the cost is borne only by those firms which decide to undertake training themselves.
The 1962 White Paper and the Bill which followed were published during an interventionist phase of the Tory Party for which the right hon. Gentleman can take some filial pride. But it was the Labour Government which got the new policy moving by vigorously administering the Act which came into force in 1964. Some of us, aware of the weak-

nesses of the Tory Party in the face of obscurantist pressure groups and the laissez-faire philosophy on which they fought the last General Election, feared a reversion to previous disastrous attitudes. To be fair, I cannot say that the document "Training for the Future" fully justifies those fears. In many ways it is a surprisingly interventionist document, and I agree with a great deal of it, especially the expansion of direct Government training activities. But once again, as anyone who reads Annexe 2 can see, we have had to learn from our competitors, instead of taking a lead.
I turn now, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) did, from direct Government activities to the Government's views on the industrial training boards, and what I have to say must be taken in conjunction with the history of this matter. I do not believe that such a radical change has taken place in the attitude of the majority of British industrialists that we can afford to take off the incentive provided by the levy/grant system. The Government have allowed the minor criticisms of disgruntled employers to exercise a disproportionate influence on their policy. While we welcome the Government's attention to the problems arising out of technological and economic change, the retraining programme, and so forth, we must not forget the still larger and general problem, which is that of maintaining the quantity and quality of day-to-day training of new entrants from schools and colleges into employment. That is still the biggest and most important problem, and the maintenance of the standards of their training is even more important than the retraining of those who fall by the way in their lifetime.
Nearly every major industry, while admitting the need for changes in the industrial training board system, has deplored the proposals to end the levy/grant system. They have done so because of their awareness that without the financial bite for which some of us, led by my right hon. Friend, fought in the Standing Committee on the Bill there was no way of making firms carry out or pay for adequate training. It is true that the increase in numbers, especially in craft apprenticeships, may not be very exciting, and even now, with


unemployment, they are falling. Nevertheless, we are not talking merely of numbers. We are talking about quality. In trying to measure the effect of the boards, we must not forget that a lot of what was called apprenticeship before the boards came into operation was no such thing.
My right hon. Friend quoted some disappointing figures about release from work, but nevertheless, the fact that there has been an improvement in quality is perhaps illustrated by the growth in numbers released from work in England and Wales from the 1964 figure of 19 per cent., which rose to 25 per cent. in 1969, and remained at 24 per cent. in 1970. What is more, the growth in approved group schemes is surely a measure of the improvement in quality. The number has gone up from approximately 60 in 1964 to about 700 today.
Both the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North referred to the excellent work of the Engineering Industry Training Board, again with the full co-operation of the trade unions, in introducing a radical new scheme for training craftsmen and making arrangements, as have some other industries, for a reduction in the period of training. Personally I would like to see trade unions undertaking schemes of training themselves and receiving grants from the boards to do it.
A number of boards have made a valuable and little-publicised contribution to the terrible problem of the vicious circle that we now face where unemployment leads to a fall in the number of apprenticeships and the willingness to accept trainees, so leading to a shortage of skilled workers in the next boom. They have done it by introducing special courses for unemployed young people, and this is a valuable contribution of the training boards to our current situation.
The Government's proposal to put the boards under the National Training Association which would finance them is quite inadequate. Apart from the loss of direct interest and responsibility, there is the financial aspect. It is not only the figures which have been quoted. There is also the fact that once the boards are subject to Treasury control there is the danger of Treasury cuts in the amounts voted for industrial training whenever

the economic climate is bad. I beg the Government to think again and to listen not to the inefficient and complacent firms which want to bumble on in their own sweet way but to the progressive firms and trade unionists who do not want to pull up by the roots a valuable plant which is only just beginning to come to full growth.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Robert Taylor: I am glad to have an opportunity to support the Amendment and, in doing so, to support with enthusiasm the proposals contained in the Consultative Document "Training for the Future".
I must congratulate the Department of Employment on producing a clear and lucid document setting out the problems of industrial training today. I must also thank my right hon. and hon. Friends in that Department for the very thorough way in which they have carried out their investigation into the review of the Industrial Training Act, 1964.
Shortly after the General Election, 1970, I made a speech which was reported in the national Press in which I advocated the ending of the levy/grant principle. As a result, I was inundated with letters from all over the country giving details of difficulties which individuals and companies had encountered in the working of the levy/grant principle. Many of them I forwarded to the Department, and I received some very clear replies. It was obvious that very careful consideration had been given to each of the problems which had been submitted. This thorough investigation contrasts starkly with the speech of the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), which seemed to be based entirely upon the hand-outs from the industrial training boards and the documents that they have submitted in response to the requests for consultation.
It is incredible that a speech could be made on this subject without reference to the Bolton Committee's Report. The Committee was set up by the right hon. Gentleman's own Government, and it came down emphatically in favour of the release of small firms from the industrial training levy. The Committee's definition of "small firms" covered such a wide area that, if its recommendation was to be implemented, it would in effect be the end of the levy/grant system.
In a debate in another place early last month, several noble Lords were at pains to put forward the view that it was as yet too early to come to a sound judgment about whether the levy/grant system should be retained. This point has also been emphasised by one or two of the industrial training boards. However, it is not a valid argument. As long ago as 1966–67 it was obvious that the levy/grant system was not producing the results that it was hoped to achieve—

Mr. William Hamling: It had not started then.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) says that it had not started. However, what I say is supported by the Ninth Report of the Estimates Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman was himself Chairman. In paragraph 42 of its introduction, it is made clear that one of the three companies which appeared before the Committee to give evidence on the subject of the levy/grant principle had changed its system of training in order to maximise its grant, and it changed it in a way that it did not think necessarily was of advantage to the company itself. What is more, paragraph 43 of that report says:
The system of levy/grant is of course implicit in the Industrial Training Act, and any abandonment of it would be a major change of policy requiring fresh legislation. The consequences of any such change would clearly be that the Industrial Training Boards would have to receive a direct subsidy from the Exchequer, since they are at the moment dependent on the money received by way of levy. Your Committee do not consider that such a drastic change of policy is required at this stage.
In other words, as long ago as 1966–67 it was clear to the Estimates Committee that the levy/grant principle was not working as it was intended.
The point that firms change their system of training in order to maximise their grant has been substantiated time and time again, and in paragraph 19 of Annex 1 of the Consultative Document one reads:
More generally the levy/grant system tends to concentrate attention on money rather than training. It is an object of the system that the prospect of recovering levy by earning grant should influence firms towards undertaking training for particular occupations or to sound standards. But the criteria for

grants are designed to meet general priorities for an industry of an occupation as a whole which will not, given the variety of firms' activities and organisation, apply equally in each particular case. A policy by a firm of maximising its grant return can therefore lead to distortion of the training that it really needs to undertake.
In other words, it repeats exactly what the hon. Member for Woolwich, West and his Committee established as long ago as 1966–67.
If the Act is not achieving its objective, where is it going wrong? The fact is that it is impossible to take an entire industry which contains different companies with different policies and different ways of approaching various problems, and say that this way of training is the answer to this industry's needs. Beyond that, for some reason various industrial training boards seem to have embarked upon a policy of empire building. Many small firms find themselves paying levies to boards which can offer no courses and no training to the requirements of those firms.
Many hon. Members will have seen a letter in the national Press from a firm making stained-glass windows which had to pay a levy to the Construction Industry Training Board. Then there was the firm in the North of England still making clogs required for a factory where they were found to be more serviceable than leather. That firm none the less had to pay levies to the Footwear and Leather Industry Training Board. Then there was the small firm in the North of England making organs which objected strongly to paying levies to the Furniture and Timber Trading Board, and the firm in Lambeth which since the eighteenth century has specialised in repairing complicated and technical ovens which are no longer made but which those who use them want maintained. That firm has to pay levies to the Construction Industry Training Board.
Take the case of a major company: on the outskirts of my constituency there is a firm which has won the Queen's Award to Industry because of its expertise in sinking mine shafts in Canada and elsewhere. Its representatives were called to South Africa when there was a mines explosion. Suddenly, as a result of a Statutory Instrument introduced in 1967 by the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, that firm found that it had to pay a


levy to the Construction Industry Training Board on the basis of the people whom the company employed sinking mine shafts. But there was nobody on the Construction Industry Training Board at that time—andI do not think that there is now—who could teach that company anything. The company objected strongly—and a substantial public company it is—to paying the levy.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Why did not the company get it back?

Mr. Taylor: Unfortunately, the board did not give the company any opportunity to get it back because it had not devised a scheme for training people in the sinking of mineshafts. The National Coal Board was affected, too. This is the kind of mess that one gets into when one tries to tell a vast industry which contains many different companies how it should train all the various companies in it.
The Bolton Report goes so far as to say that the reaction among small firms to the Act has been violent. That is the word ituses. Why is it that there has been this extraordinary reaction from so many firms to an Act which was an attempt to assist firms of every size? One can think of the frustration of a small builder who may employ 30 or 40 men, who has made a consistently good return on his capital, who has paid his men high wages and produced a decent job and who has trained his men well, getting an invitation, such as that received by one firm, to attend a seminar to learn about cash flow, balance sheets, budgeting and break-even analysis; and on looking at the situation of the Construction Industry Training Board, which has offered him the course, finds that it has lost £11 million in one year and £5 million the following year and, further, that the accounts of the board have to be qualified by its accountant to show that the major creditor has been omitted. In other words, this training board brings into its income the levies which it receives but it omits from expenditure the grants that it is due to pay. That is the organisation which invites others to learn how to budget and produce a cash flow.
There are many other things which irritate small businesses. A furniture manufacturer in Oxfordshire who employs 40 people wrote saying—hon.

Gentlemen opposite seem preoccupied with what the industrial training boards say; it would be better if they paid attention to what the boards do—that he had been invited to a seminar. This is interesting, because it is entitled:
Time saving of top management for profit",
followed by a note:
Eligibility for grants has been negotiated with some Industrial Training Boards.
The seminar is to commence at 10 o'clock, with coffee, and then the document says:
10.30 First Session: 
The role of the chairman.
That is followed by a discussion period until 12.30, when there is a break for cocktails and luncheon. The menu is interesting:
Smoked Salmon—Piesporter Goldtroptchen"—
whatever that is—
Grilled Entrecote Steak, Mushrooms, Stuffed Tomatoes and Sauté Potatoes, Chateau Lafleur Pomerol—Cassata Siciliana—Cheese and Biscuits—Coffee.
The second session in the afternoon is entitled:
The Managing Director At Work.
What is the reaction of the small firm which finds no time for luncheons of that kind when it receives such invitations? The fees are £30, which, as it says, are recoverable from the training boards.
In the debate in the other place to which I have referred Lord Mottistone, for whom I have the greatest admiration as the Chief Executive of the Distributive Industry Training Board, made the point that there was apprehension among many companies that if the Government left the industrial training boards with the power to raise levies, in the unfortunate event of a change of Government the new Government would resurrect these levies because there is a tremendous keenness on the benches opposite for levies to be as high as possible—[Interruption.] The view of hon. Gentlemen opposite seems to be—the higher the levy, the more incentive there is to train people.

Mr. Mikardo: Rubbish.

Mr. Taylor: That is the point that has been made many times—the higher the


levy, the greater the incentive to train. The noble Lord agreed that that was unlikely to happen, but it could happen, and, therefore, I should like this document "Training for the Future" taken further and all the resources which the Government are putting into industrial training channelled into the retraining of those who are unemployed, because they are the people who need our help. If people are retrained they are more likely to get a job, and that makes sense. I hope that my right hon. Friends will press ahead with the proposals in this document. I hope, too, that we shall see an end of the levy/grant system early in the new Session of Parliament.

Mr. James Hamilton: I have been listening attentively to the hon. Gentleman's speech. I am sure that the Minister who is to reply to the debate will concur with this point of view. Local industrialists in my constituency have been in touch with the Department asking for a continuation of the levy/grant system. When the hon. Gentleman talks about retraining, will he bear in mind that in my part of the country there are 16,000 unemployed? There is a training centre there, and I hope that another one will be opened at the end of the year. I have been asking the Minister to give us the jobs to employ those people.

Mr. Taylor: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to ask me a question, but, obviously, that is not so.

Mr. Hamilton: How would the hon. Gentleman deal with that situation?

Mr. Taylor: Money should be channelled into retraining and into areas of unemployment. It does not make sense to pour money into industrial training boards, because it has been proved that to do so creates training which may not necessarily be in the interests of the company whose policies are directed towards maximising the grant.
The Government's proposals to reduce the grants of training boards are in line with my thoughts. I wish they would go further. I warmly support the Amendment.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: It is a pity that what had started as a good debate

was a little let down by the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Robert Taylor) consisting, as it did, of a mixture of knockabout comedy and argument to knock down the views of other people which they had never expressed. However, the hon. Gentleman has a substratum of justification in the argument that there are difficulties and anomalies in the levy/grant system. Indeed there must be, and I think that attention has to be directed as far as possible to getting rid of them.
There is room for a good deal more flexibility, within some industries at least, in interpretation anda good many changes which do not require legislation. I have in mind administrative changes which would get over some though not all of the difficulties which the hon. Gentleman has described. There are some administrative bureaucratic difficulties—if one wants to use a pejorative word like "bureaucratic"—but let us face the fact and not get away from it that the letters which the hon. Gentleman has received, and the letters which doubtless the Secretary of State has received along the same lines, are to an overwhelming extent motivated by one consideration, and that consideration is the desire of selfish, parasitical employers who in the past have acted as parasites on their competitors by "pinching" men trained by their competitors, to escape any obligation whatsoever.
When the Secretary of State is considering with an open mind—as he said he would, and I believe him—all the representations, he is far too experienced and sensible not to understand the basic motivation in most of the objections to the levy/grant scheme.
The House and all our industry must be indebted to my right hon. Friends for having put down this subject for debate at a time when, as the Secretary for State said, there is a great deal of dynamism in our industrial scene, with new industries growing up and others declining. He might have added also a mention of the spate of mergers, takeovers and rationalisations and the development of new technologies which are changing the employment pattern. At such a time, it is perhaps no exaggeration to say that the continued health and competitiveness of British industry will depend more on using to the full the potential skills of


our work force than on any other single factor.
Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said, it would have been nonsensical for the Government to carry out, as they have done, a process of consulting many interests, organisations and people without consulting the House of Commons before finally making up their minds. I share my right hon. Friend's regret that we are debating this in a partisan way. I would go further. I could have wished that we were having this debate not on a Motion and an Amendment at all but in an open way, leaving us to do battle with the terms of the White Paper, when it comes along, and the subsequent legislation if we do not agree with them.
I accept that the Secretary of State will have a fresh and serious look at all this. After all, the document was produced before he took up his present office. If I may give an opponent a compliment behind his back, I believe that he is a flexibly-minded sort of chap who will have a fresh look at this in a genuine and honest way. We should give him every encouragement.
It is common cause among us all that this subject cannot be considered in a vacuum but must be related to the general background of the economic and employment situation and the attitude of employers to their labour. As has already been said, the whole concept of industrial relations can, and indeed has, become discredited by trainees going through a course of training, acquiring a skill and then finding that there are no vacancies in their locality for people with that class of skill. This is not only a waste of public resources: still more important, it is a beating over the head of a man's morale if he is trained only for the dole queue.
I hope that the Government have begun to understand that we cannot seriously expect anything worth while of any training scheme—either the Government's own scheme, however many more resources they put into it, or the ITB scheme, however it is improved—so long as we are talking of unemployment figures of about a million. Until we get rid of that, it is only playing around the edges of our problem to talk about increasing and

improving the facilities of industrial training.
It is also only skirting the edges of the problem if we do not relate industrial training to manpower policy. Whether we need a national manpower board which is a part of the right hon. Gentleman's Department or whether it could be sponsored by the Department with some independence is something we might debate on another occasion, but what we have been lacking up to now is any sort of authority which takes a hard and constant look at economic movements, at fluctuations in demand for different products and hence fluctuations in demand for the different skills which are used in the manufacture of different products, and also at changes and movements in population, especially as they affect the regions of high unemployment.
Until we have such an organisation, whether within the Department or outside, we are training in a speculative vacuum. We are training people without knowing whether we are producing more people of one skill than will ever be required and not producing enough of the skills which will be required. The whole of this must start from one principle—namely, that no able-bodied worker is ever unemployed: he is either in a job or he is being trained for a vacancy.
No matter how much we increase the number of places—the Secretary of State was justified in claiming credit for the increase, although the target is still far too low—we are still short of what should be the proper objective unless we accept, as is accepted in Sweden, that no able-bodied worker is ever unemployed—he is either working or being trained. It will not be easy to reach this objective, but it is only when it is accepted that that is where we aim to be that we shall get full value from training programmes.
Coupled with that new outlook which I am demanding of the Government and the House, there should also be a new outlook by employers on the re-equipment and training of their workers. In all the years that I have been a management consultant there has always been one thing more than any other which surprised and shocked me. It was the different attitude of management towards spending money on machinery and spending money on labour.
A works director who buys anew machine for perhaps £100,000 will exercise the greatest of care. He will get catalogues of all the competing models and will talk to salesmen. He will go to exhibitions and will visit companies which use the different models, sometimes going abroad. He will debate with himself and finally will decide. He will spend his £100,000 and will have his machine grouted in with the utmost care, getting his maintenance boys along to ensure that it is properly installed and that there are proper routines for keeping it perfectly maintained, in order to get full value for his £100,000.
That man might spend £500,000 a year on wages and salaries, yet he will usually take the first labour that comes along. Far from "grouting it in", in manycases he will not provide even an embryonic induction into the firm, let alone any training. If the worker falls down on the job because he is unfamiliar with it or has been wrongly chosen, he is flung out and another is brought in. But if the machine cannot cope, the employer goes to extraordinary lengths to find out what has gone wrong. Until we have management which takes as much care with its staff as with its machines, we will not get the best out of men and management co-operating in training.
I am not asking managements in competitive businesses to carry out social services on behalf of the community. They should do it in their own commercial interests, remembering that one of the most pestilential of all on-costs is an unduly high proportion of labour turnover, and this comes about as a result of the attitude on the part of management that I have been describing.
The Minister was justified in pinning a bit of a medal on his colleagues who previously occupied his post for the increased provision for Government training, but do not let us kid ourselves. The resources that have been made available are grossly inadequate to the need. It is proposed by the end of 1975 to spend £60 million a year on training. At present, expenditure per training place is running at £1,250. We are told that this £60 million must finance up to 70.000 trainees. This indicates that about £860 will be spent per training place by 1975.
Even leaving out the consequences of inflation—judging from the present rates, it will not be insubstantial by 1975—we will be spending one-third less than we are now spending per training place. Taking the consequences of inflation into account, we will be spending a little more than one-half per trainee. Does this make sense?
I come to the question of the organisation of the ITB system of training. The key question in any such organisation is how far one centralises or decentralises. This is never an easy question to answer because there are always arguments on both sides, and one must hold a balance.
It seems that the Government's proposals carry centralisation much too far. The central agency should be responsible for only four aspects. The first is the overall strategic planning of the training activity, in partnership with the National Manpower Board, maintaining liaison with the board—in other words, assessing the pattern of need and making sure that the individual ITB's conform in their work to supplying the pattern of established need.
Second, it is useful to carry out centrally training in skills which are common to many industries, and perhaps common to all. I refer, for example, to training in managerial skills, including industrial relations, that is, man management, and including the use of control statistics. Computer operation is a subject on which the central agency could give training because it is common to many industries. The same can be said to some clerical skills and some non-vocational training, because even in industrial training there should be such elements as industrial economics.
The third aspect which should be handled centrally is that of central advice. This should be made available to the ITBs. I am thinking of a parallel to the National Ports Council and the port authorities.
It seems a violation of everything that is generally understood in management theory and practice to have the execution carried out centrally on the basis of advice given on the perimeter. The normal practice, and for good reason, is for the method to be laid down centrally but for the execution on the perimeter to be delegated with the right, power and


duty to carry out the method. It would be sensible, therefore, to have the central agency in an advisory rôle and the individual ITBs in an operative rôle rather than the other way round.
The fourth task to be handled centrally is that of training for industries which, for one reason or another, have not been covered by the individual ITBs.
In considering the question of the people who are at present staffing the ITBs, I should declare a certain interest because most of them are members of the trade union to which I belong and which my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) may be interested to know does training of its officers and lay members with the support of ITBs.
These chaps have an unusual combination of expertise. They need not only expertise in the technology of the industry but also in teaching. Hon. Members who have been involved in these matters, and there are many on both sides of the House, will appreciate how seldom these two qualities meet together in one man: the ability to do and the ability to teach.
These ITBs have recruited, trained or somehow obtained many people with this unusual double skill to a very high measure indeed. It would be a desperate tragedy if the effect of the reorganisation which the Government propose were to result in some of those skills being wasted simply because there was no training for them to do.
I beg the Secretary of State to takea fresh look at this whole matter and to take account of the submissions that have been made to him in this debate and elsewhere. He should not be put off his good works in this connection simply because of the Division which will take place at the end of these deliberations. I beg him to look at the matter objectively and not to feel that he has lost any prestige if the White Paper differs substantially from the consultative document. After all, that is what consultative documents are for.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: I join with hon. Members who have welcomed much that is good in this document, particularly the opening section on needs and objectives and the section on Government training centres and vocational opportunities.
I hope I am right in detecting in what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said a somewhat more open-minded attitude on the subject of the Industrial Training Act than is implied in a strict reading of the document, because it would be unfortunate if the full rigour of the document were carried out in dealing with the 1964 Act.
When that Act was passed it rested on two principles, one of which has been frequently mentioned today and the other less so. The first principle was a stimulus to improve training so much needed in the form of a stick and carrot or the levy/grant system. The other was that each industry should be responsible for its own training. Without those two principles there would have been little in substance in the 1964 Act. To abrogate them both would be to emasculate the Act.
The consultative document proposes to abrogate both principles. There can be only two possible reasons for doing so. One is that the Government have concluded that the Act should never have been passed in the first place and the other is that the Government have concluded that the Act has already fully served its purpose. The second argument is hinted at in the document at paragraph 31:
…and that a permanent shift in attitude in British industry has been secured.
I have not encountered anybody who believes that, nor is it conceivable merely seven years after the Act was passed. The argument is explicitly repudiated in most of the comments I have read. I will not quote them as many other hon. Members have referred to them.
All that remains is the argument that the Act was a mistake in the first place. I am well aware that many industrialists think so and many will have told the Minister that they take this view. It is certainly not the considered opinion of the more far-seeing industrialists or those responsible for training under them. I urge the Minister to listen to the latter and not to confuse teething troubles with permanent defects.
There have been legitimate complaints about some of the practices of some of the boards—the great mass of paper they produce, the inflexibility of some of their rules, the distortion of some training practices, to which the hon. Member for


Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) rightly referred, the costly administration and the unfairness to small firms which was the main theme of the Bolton Report.
Some of the earlier industrial training boards mishandled their relations with their industries. The Construction Industry Training Board got itself into a hopeless financial mess. The Agricultural Training Board completely misunderstood the psychology of farmers. The Road Transport Industry Training Board spent most extravagantly on training schemes of its own which were generally regarded as unnecessary. To take one trivial instance, the Furniture Industry Training Board occupied a lot of my time a few years ago by making preposterous attempts to extend its scope to the manufacture of briar pipes. On the other hand several training boards deserve credit for the skilful management of their relations with their industry. I instance particularly the Chemical Industry Training Board and the Ceramics and Glass Industry Training Board of which I saw a good deal.
The main point is that these are early days in which to reach final conclusions. Judged by any standard except the life of a Parliament, the training boards are still extremely new. What is more, they are imperfectly understood. One reason why they are imperfectly understood is that the 1964 Act engendered comparatively little controversy, although it was an Act which was in many ways as important as any of the Education Acts passed this century.
A particular source of misunderstanding was the earliest, largest and most powerful industrial training board, that of the engineers, which adopted from the beginning the somewhat misleading practice of fixing its levy at such a level as to raise a total income equivalent to the entire cost of training in the industry. This misled some employers into thinking that once they had paid their levy they had paid the full cost of their train-in, which they had not. They were put out to find that they still had to pay for their training and that their grant would never come to the whole of their outlay, the levy plus the cost of training. However, in some cases, to the pleasant surprise of industrial employers, the grant exceeded the levy. That, too, was a confusing thing to happen.
Even more confusing, some employers found that, although doing exactly the same amount and quality of training in consecutive years, they got totally different grants because they had failed to realise that their share of the total grant available under the board depended on what other employers in the industry did and not merely on what they themselves were doing. All this was compounded in the case of the Engineering Industry Training Board by the elaborate and complex formulae for calculating the grant, which no employer could work out in advance.
I, like many other hon. Members, could give many instances of the sense of bewilderment and unfairness among smaller employers. They were not the only ones to suffer misunderstandings and consequent disillusionment. All parties to the operation of the Act probably started with some misconceptions. Some employers thought that the Act would help to erode the rigidities of the apprenticeship system. Some teachers thought that it would help to eke out depleted education budgets. Some trade unionists thought it would increase the scale of day release. In some degree it has contributed to all these ends, although they were not written into the Act. Because the Act did not do as much as was expected, certain disappointment followed. It was absurd to expect so much in the early years, but it would be still more absurd to scrap the Act prematurely as a failure.
What should be done, in a nutshell, is to maintain the industrial training boards but to scale them down and taper off their levy/grant powers. The more forward-thinking boards are already in the process of doing so.
The document speaks of retaining the boards but implies that their rôle will be severely diminished by putting the National Training Agency over them in a co-ordinating rôle. This will be unwelcome by industry and damaging to the industrial training boards for several reasons. It will offend against the principle that each industry should be responsible for its own training without any central control superimposed on it.
By all means let the NTA have the powers indicated in paragraph 153. I agree with virtually all the points which have been made about the functions to be assigned to it, to cover employment not


covered by particular training boards and particularly to administer inter-board functions which are managed by committees of the Central Training Council—for example, clerical training, the training of training officers, research and so on. But the existing boards should retain the undivided responsibility for the basic functions of training for their own industry. They should retain levy/grant powers as it is absurd to imagine that any industry will raise a voluntary levy.
It should be made clear that levy/grant powers are to be exercised on a tapering scale such as is already being adopted by the Engineering Industry Training Board and the Chemical Industry Training Board. Both those boards have been able, as a result, substantially to cut their levy rate. That process could undoubtedly go further but it cannot be reduced to zero overnight without doing irreparable damage. That is clearly the view of the boards, including all their members representing trade unions, educationists and employer. It is also the view of a number of members of the Confederation of British Industry, as will be apparent to anybody who reads between the lines of its report, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton), who unfortunately has been unable to be here today.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give these views careful consideration before imposing the drastic remedies set out in the document, which would be something like curing a headache by the process of decapitation.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Roland Moyle: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) in the thoughtful speech which he has directed to our debate. His speech has enhanced the high regard in which we hold him. We are being allowed only a short debate on this important subject. Therefore, I will speak as briefly as I can and direct my remarks mainly to the retention of the levy/grant system, particularly related to a group of employees which would not readily be discussed this afternoon, namely, the student apprentices and trainee scientists for whom we will have to provide for the future. No doubt many of my hon. Friends would wish to have an opportunity to expound upon the question of

training craft apprentices and other members of the work force.
However, I must first make two preliminary points. First, I am pleased to learn from the Secretary of State that he is to pay close regard to the views expressed in the House today, because if his intention had been to mislead me into believing that the contrary was his attitude I do not think he could have put his name to a more cunningly drafted Amendment. However, I am not prepared to rest on nitpicking in drafting. I am prepared to take the word of one person to another across the Floor of the House.
Second, according to my computation there have been three reviews of industrial training in Britain over the last 15 years. It is a point of collector's interest to realise that the first and the last of those reviews have been closely connected with the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr). I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be reminded about it, but in the late 1950s he was the chairman of a committee which produced a study called "Training for Skill". The right hon. Member was then an Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Labour.
Basically, that document said what an excellent training system we had and that all we had to do was to get hold of our young school leavers and sit them next to "Nelly" for four or five years and we would turn out the most superb craftsmen that Europe and, indeed, the whole world had ever seen. The right hon. Gentleman's committee thought that a little exhortation was perhaps necessary here and there to carry along the laggards. Therefore, a body known as the Industrial Training Council was set up, with the British Employers' Confederation, as it then was, providing the secretariat.
For about two or three years that council relied entirely upon a process of exhortation to get industrial training going. It was a gross and total failure. I know from my own experience, because I was in industry at the time. The Industrial Training Council was set up to encourage people to undertake more training and to ensure that the worst employers did not poach trained people from the better and more socially conscious employers. That process of poaching occurred before the council was set


up. It went on after the council was set up. It was brought to an end only when the council was, fortunately, abolished and the Industrial Training Act took its place.
As I look at the Government's pamphlet produced for discussion this afternoon, I am very much afraid that the leadership, the techniques and the policies which failed us about a dozen years ago are being reintroduced to deal with the problems of 1972. This is not good enough.
I shall talk now about the problems of student engineers and trainee scientists. The whole problem of these people and, indeed, of everybody in our industrial training system has been put in a much more sinister context by some of the remarks the Prime Minister has been making recently. On 17th April the right hon. Gentleman was moved to say that Britain must be careful not to produce too many engineers and scientists. I shall pass over the point that anybody with a positive attitude to the problem would have set himself out to ask how best the supply of engineers and scientists that we are producing can be used by British industry and, if we have engineers and scientists who are not being properly used, how industry might be stimulated to expand its operations to employ these engineers and scientists.
That would have been the proper line for the Prime Minister to take instead of the negative one of warning the nation of having too many qualified people. Can anybody in the House this afternoon honestly say that the British labour force is far too qualified for the basis of industrial competition, commercial competition or any other sort of competition which we have in the world? The answer is bound to be "No".
Later during that question hour I approached the Prime Minister and asked him this question. If he thought that we had too many scientists and engineers, how many did he think we should have and how did he think we should set about getting that number? The right hon. Gentleman was in considerable difficulty, because by and large British Governments do not have a great deal of control over the number of scientists and engineers produced by our institutions of

higher learning. The whole system of higher education at the moment seems to be designed to achieve that purpose. There is broad agreement at present between both sides on that matter. The Prime Minister had to waffle in reply—I do not think that is putting it too highly—and talk about what the Civil Service was doing in terms of careful personnel placing and so on.
One of the ways in which the number of people going through the universities can be manipulated by the Government is to go against the compulsory levy/grant system as laid down by the Industrial Training Act, 1964. A number of our higher institutions of learning—the nine technological universities, as they are sometimes called, and the 30 polytechnics—depend to a very substantial extent on the levy/grant system for completing their training for degree courses for engineers and scientists. If one begins to undermine that system, one begins to undermine the number of student engineers and scientists who are attracted to the universities and who go through the universities in the first place.
Over the last month or two I have taken upon myself the task of sounding out a number of our leading academicians in both the public and university sectors of higher education about their views on the future of the professional degree people we shall be training for the future. All of them I have come across so far—there may be exceptions, but I have yet to come across them—believe that the abolition of the levy/grant system will do a great deal of harm to the institutions in which they work. The Government should be fully aware of this because a number of these people have submitted representations to the Government.
At a technological university not too far from here there is a very large number of student scientists and engineers on what the university calls a thin sandwich system. This means that every year for three years the students do two terms at the university and for the rest of the year go out into industry and get the rest of their training in a practical down-to-earth fashion. This system requires that the students be placed for the second part of the "sandwich" with industry.


This in turn requires the co-operation of industry in this vital part of the training.
I stress that that is what is happening at one technological university and that there are eight others and 30 polytechnics which are also, to some extent or other, in the same situation. That university in 1963 placed 350 student engineers in industry. In 1972 it placed 1,250. If its plans for the coming quinquennium are approved in total, it hopes by 1977 to be placing 2,400 students every year on the shop floor.
I hope that the House will bear with me whilst I read the comment that this technological university makes:
The levy system operated under the Industrial Training Boards provided a real incentive to companies to provide places in addition to their immediate short term needs. It demonstrated that the training of young people was a necessary social service which was expected of them, not an optional charity. The withdrawal of the levy will make it very difficult for any management to justify expenditure ontraining for any but his immediately foreseeable requirements…other managers may consider it cheaper to 'poach' graduates trained elsewhere.
That last sentence leads me to think that the problems which we had in the late 1950s and early 1960s and from which I had hoped we were now emerging are beginning to loom ever more darkly on the horizon of industrial training.
It requires a very substantial effort on the part of industry to meet the training of student engineers and scientists. Admittedly the tutors and staff of the universities and the polytechnics go out into industry to supervise their students regularly and on a very comprehensive basis. But between the visits of the tutors and the staffs of the universities supervision of the student apprentices must entirely depend upon the supervision—and that means the resources—of the management of the firm with which they are placed. It means foremen, general management, middle management and sometimes senior management taking time off the normal job to make sure that the student apprentices are getting the sort of industrial experience they need.
Those tutors from universities are also very closely in touch with the industrial firms with which they work and their view can be taken as a soundly-based judgment of the situation which is likely to arise in British industry with regard

to training students and apprentices of all kinds if the industrial levy/grant system is abolished. This is the incentive, the staffs believe, in the industrial end of the thin sandwich training.
In spite of everything that the right hon. Gentleman says—and I hope he will look at this with an open mind—it looks as though the Government are beginning to turn to the old ideas and methods. Admittedly there will be a substantially greater amount of administrative backing to their new policy than there was in the old days, but the essential voluntary nature will reappear. It looks very much as though the Government are turning, almost under the old hands, to the old policies which failed a dozen years ago. If that is so and if at some not too far distant time this country discovers that it does not have sufficient engineers and scientists to maintain the standard of living that its people hope to achieve, the electorate will not readily forgive the Government.
We are almost reaching the point at which, if the Government put forward an idea and it is sufficiently strongly criticised from the Opposition side of the House, the Government drop that idea and produce an idea which at any rate looks like a policy which we thought was appropriate for the 1960s. This is a great improvement on the normal attitude of the Conservative Party, which has always endeavoured to be 50 years out of date. We congratulate the Conservative Party on being only 10 years out of date.
If that it so, however, I beg right hon. and hon. Members on the Government benches to believe that they will not solve their student apprenticeship problem to the satisfaction of this side of the House if they direct a solution towards the student apprentices and scientists which is substantially more generous in principle than the solution which they hope to achieve for the training of craft apprentices and others in industry.
We have to have a parity of approach to the industrial training solution of both classes, at the top end of the training scale and at the other end of the scale.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I shall not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Lewisham, North(Mr. Moyle) in great detail. I congratulate him


on his speech, except for his rather ascorbic words in the last passage, which were uncalled for. With so much agreement in the House, I find it strange that the Opposition should be dividing the House this evening. Nevertheless I take the point made by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) that we need possibly a more revolutionary attitude to training than we have seen hitherto. I take the point made so excellently by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) that perhaps we should take a more proper evolutionary conservative approach and should not throw away what has already been built up.
I know that sometimes comparisons are unfair, but if we compare what is happening in Sweden today with the sort of training that we are offering we find that the amount of money that we propose to invest is not nearly high enough. It is a question not only of industrial skills but also of social happiness and advantage, which is the due of everyone in this country. But without training it is quite possible that we shall still have a very high level of unemployment and a shortage of skills. With any turn-up in the economy, this becomes fairly clear even on the most pragmatic and commercial grounds. Even so there is a far wider need, which was stressed by the Government and has been stressed by all hon. Members. There is the essential need of linking the question of training with the question of unemployment. I shall speak about that when I come shortly to discuss the proposals for the central national training agency.
In regard to the immediate questions about the training boards, however, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will look again at the question of doing away with the levy/grant. Although there have been failures and miscalculations in various training boards, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford pointed out, there is no question but that this is the stimulus which gets the industrialist to see that training is carried out. To switch away from this process now, when it has been in existence for only seven or eight years, would be an error. What is more, this throws up the sort of sums which we propose to be invested in training as against those being invested on the Continent. In comparison with Sweden, manpower for

manpower and workforce for workforce, it would mean that we should have to be investing about £300 million a year. The proposal is now running in the £60 million to £70 million range.
I come to two fairly small points although they are of great importance in my part of the world. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have read the report of the West Midlands Engineering Group, which has criticised this document to a considerable extent, and the report of the timber and woodworking trades, which again has made criticisms which I have sent to my right hon. Friend. I hope he will make clear what is to happen to the group training schemes, such as the Cannock Group Training Scheme, which have been of such benefit to small firms, very effective and run at very low cost. I hope they will find a place in whatever scheme the Government put forward.
It is right that the national training agency should be independent, rather in the same way as in Sweden. Although I have not been to Sweden I have read the excellent pamphlet by Mr. Mukherjee on the subject. The principle of the independence of this agency is on the whole a very good one. I agree with the hon. Member for Poplar and with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford that this should not become too involved with detail and certainly should not destroy the powers of the industrial training boards. The points made by the hon. Member for Poplar about specialisation or working across the whole front, in things such as training in the use of computers and so on and the sort of things common to all industries, are good ones.
But this independent agency should have two very important links which have, perhaps, not yet been fully mentioned. First it should have very closelinks with technical education. Here I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, North and with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford. The Act of 1964 was a great step forward into national education. The link which should be established between this agency and the technical colleges and universities must be of the closest nature.
Secondly there should be a much closer link than that proposed between this central agency and those departments


dealing with unemployment and the pursuit of jobs for the unemployed. We are still very weak compared with Sweden and France, and the money now being spent by France, in seeing that those without a job have a chance of either retraining or replacement. Given these things and these improvements, the present Government, with the brains and ability of my right hon. Friend, can turn out a job which does not deserve all the medals but a job which will deserve the plaudits of the whole House.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I should like to refer briefly to two matters. The first is the daunting problem facing large numbers of severely disabled people in this field. The Secretary of State spoke for a moment or two on retraining the disabled. I know of his deep personal interest in the problems of severe disablement. He worked closely with me on these problems in the last Parliament. I am grateful to him for his fleeting reference to the problems of the severely disabled. But I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman, on reflection, would say that he went nearly far enough.
I described the problem as daunting not least because of its size. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that the current rate of unemployment among the employable disabled has risen to a scandalous 14·9 per cent. In the North West the rate is even higher at 16·3 per cent. Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that what he said today is even barely satisfactory against the background of these figures? As he knows, even the current unemployment rate among the employable disabled does not tell the whole story.
We are all aware of disabled people who have lost all hope of ever obtaining work. They are oppressed by a deep and wholly understandable despair. There are very large numbers of unemployed disabled people who crave the right to work. They want the dignity of becoming taxpayers, not the dependence of being supplementary pensioners. They will not lose their sense of dependence unless we do very much more than we are now doing to train and retrain the disabled for open employment.
I accept that this is not the only cause of the intimidating problems facing

employable disabled people. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) spoke recently against the law-breaking firms failing to employ their statutory 3 per cent. of disabled workers. We want to see the firms which break the law brought to court for their offences. My hon. Friend asked the Secretary of State to institute proceedings. The Department of Employment has admitted that, out of 62.537firms, 58 per cent. are not taking all the disabled workers they should and of these 14,848 have not been granted permits exempting them from the obligation because the work which they could offer was not suitable for the disabled. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South has very properly argued that the present situation is deeply outrageous.
It may be that some of the tricksters and law-breaking firms will seek to justify themselves by reference to the wholly inadequate opportunities for industrial retraining among disabled people. Whatever they say, they must no longer be allowed to break the law at will. We must have not only adequate industrial training opportunities for the disabled, but also the availability of jobs for the disabled to take up.
As soon as I read the document "Training for the Future" I wrote to the Minister asking him to enter into full and immediate consultation with the organisations which represent disabled people. In reply the Under-Secretary of State wrote to me on 30th May to say that his officers who are working on the development of the Training Opportunities Scheme would be meeting the Director of the Central Council for the Disabled to hear and discuss his views in detail. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reply. I hope we shall learn that the meeting with the Director of the Central Council will take place at a very early date.
The second matter to which I wish to refer concerns training policy in the retail trades. As right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will know, there has recently been set up an all-party retail trade group of which the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) and myself are officers. My interest derives from a very close and abiding connection with the


co-operative movement. If the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, I know he will join me in emphasising that the Retail Consortium would like to be assured that it will be consulted by the National Training Agency, if and when it is set up, on all aspects of training policy in the retail trades. When he replies to the debate, I hope the Minister will give that assurance to the Retail Consortium and that he will also reply constructively and sympathetically on the first of the matters I have raised.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Robert Redmond: I trust that the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) will forgive me if I do not comment on his speech. I know of his intense interest in the disabled. I share his interest, but time presses and therefore I must be brief.
I wish to make three points. First, it has been suggested that the training boards are unanimous in their opposition to the withdrawal of levy/grant. That is not so. As Secretary of the Conservative Employment Committee in the House, together with my colleagues on it, I have been in consultation over the last few months with many boards. I shall be seeing the representatives of one of the boards tomorrow. The third point in a document which I have from the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board is that it
believes the balance of advantage lies in favour of discontinuing levy and supports the proposal to phase levy out after 1972–73.
That is the view of just one board. I assure the House that a number of others have a similar view.
Secondly, if abatement from the levy were given to the very small firms which cannot benefit from the training board's services simply because no training would be useful to the very small number of people they employ and the cost of collecting the levy would probably exceed the amount collected, we would have far fewer complaints about the levy system. In the last two years some of my colleagues and myself have been inundated with complaints from small employers to the effect that a very small levy was a pinprick and a nuisance. The Engineering Industry Training Board wished some time ago to give abatement to very small

firms and was prevented from doing so by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) when she was First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. If she had allowed abatement, we would have had no complaints and the present situation would perhaps not have emerged.
Thirdly, by far the most important part of the document "Training of the Future" is that which deals with the question of retraining. When the economy is reflated we nearly always run out of certain types of skill, and that is happening now. I represent an area which unfortunately has suffered considerably from rising unemployment following the squeeze of 1966 and devaluation. Recently I sent to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State a report on a survey I had made of situations vacant in which I showed that there were shortages of skills. The example which highlighted the situation was that of a firm in the Bolton travel-to-work area which advertised for bricklayers at £80 a week—over £4,000 a year—and had no takers because there was such a shortage.
There is a general shortage of building trade operatives and workers from the engineering industries are queueing at the employment exchanges in search of jobs. Surely we ought to think in terms of retraining these people, and that is why the retraining proposals are so important. Rather than put down a Motion criticising what the Government are doing about industrial training, the Opposition could have put down a Motion congratulating the Government for seeking to help men to improve their position by retraining.

6.50 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Robert Chichester-Clark): I wish to speak briefly in the last few minutes of the debate, and I hope that in so doing I shall not be shutting anyone else out.
More than anything else I wish to re-emphasise what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier about the consultative nature of the proposals. They are consultative, as many of us who have spent many hours in recent weeks in consultation have every reason to know. As my right hon. Friend said firmly today, no firm decision, apart from the decision on the training opportunities


scheme, has been taken. We have seen all those at the training boards who have wished to see us. Many other organisations including the TUC, the CBI, many individuals and interested organisations, youth employment interests, the Central Training Council and many others, have made representations. More than 800 letters have been received from interested persons; so there is a wealth of evidence to be sifted. That will take some time, although, as my right hon. Friend said, it is still hoped to announce the main conclusions by the time the House rises for the Summer Recess.
We have had a most constructive debate. I wish it had been longer. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Robert Taylor) in an interesting speech drew attention to some of the failings of the training boards. No one this afternoon has attempted in any way to conceal that there had been failings. But on the other side it is important to remember, as has been forcefully said this afternoon, that the boards have major achievements to their credit, too. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid tribute to the work they have done. If my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West will forgive me for saying so, it is sometimes not too difficult to make an organisation look rather foolish, as he did in an amusing speech, by drawing attention to its defects. But the defects should not blind us to the useful work that goes on but does not catch the limelight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) drew attention to the danger of over-centralisation. He was worried that the National Training Agency might dictate to the training boards and take away their responsibility for training in their industries. I fully accept that this would be most undesirable. The National Training Agency certainly must not stand, and it is not intended that it should stand, between the boards and their industries. The boards would continue to be responsible for considering their industries' training needs and devising programmes to meet them, as at present envisaged. The agency's job would be to co-ordinate their work and supplement it in those industries not covered by the boards.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) mentioned the importance of group train-

ing schemes. We fully accept that. We must ensure that the new scheme is capable of encouraging group training schemes. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North(Mr. Moyle) made an important point about the vital need for sandwich courses. As we have indicated on a good many occasions, this matter is being considered very carefully, and the consultative document recognises the importance of these courses.
The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), in a most constructive speech, said that he wished that we were not debating a Motion but were merely debating the subject philosophically in a vacuum, and I find myself in a good deal of agreement with him. He said that he believed that the Secretary of State would approach the matter with an open mind. This was also stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford when he said that he detected an open-minded attitude to the consultative document in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's approach this afternoon. Both the hon. Member for Poplar and my hon. Friend were absolutely right. If it were not a consultative document it would have been fraudulent of us to have referred to it as such.
I do not wish to be controversial, but I must say to the Opposition that I fail to see the need for the Motion. But they have put it down, and, therefore, there must be an Amendment. The need for the Motion at the very least seems to be obscure.

Mr. Prentice: The Government's proposals in "Training for the Future" are on record and we must take them as their current policy. If they are to change their policy we shall welcome it, but it is their policy and it is on the record and it is against that policy that we shall vote tonight.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the document he will see that it is sub-titled "a plan for discussion". That makes its purpose very clear. We have had a broad measure of agreement on one point. No one has in any way questioned the need for an improvement in the quantity and quality of training in this country and the proposals in "Training for the Future" for training opportunity schemes have been very largely welcomed. The debate most certainly has not been a waste of time,


but to cause the House to divide most certainly would be. No Government can accept a Motion of this kind, and I must, therefore, urge my hon. Friends to vote

wholeheartedly for the Amendment.

Question put. That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 267. Noes 235.

Division No. 197.]
AYES
[6.58 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveridge, John


Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, R. N.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fortescue, Tim
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fowler, Norman
MacArthur, Ian


Astor, John
Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, R. A


Atkins, Humphrey
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
McLaren, Martin


Awdry, Daniel
Fry, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G
McMaster, Stanley


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Gardner, Edward
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk. C.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maddan, Martin


Bell, Ronald
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Madel, David


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Goodhart, Philip
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Benyon, W.
Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gorst, John
Mather, Carol


Biffen, John
Gower, Raymond
Maude, Angus


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Blaker, Peter
Gray, Hamish
Mawby, Ray


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Body, Richard
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gurden, Harold
Miscampbell, Norman


Bowden, Andrew
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mitchell.Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bray, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moate, Roger


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Molyneaux, James


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan
Money, Ernie


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Havers, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Buck, Antony
Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper


Bullus, Sir Eric
Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Burden, F. A.
Hiley, Joseph
Morrison, Charles


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Mudd, David


Carlisle, Mark
Holland, Philip
Murton, Oscar


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Holt, Miss Mary
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Cary, Sir Robert
Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey


Channon, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Nott, John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Onslow, Cranley


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Cockeram, Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parkinson, Cecil


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Percival, Ian


Coombs, Derek
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Cooper, A. E.
James, David
Pink, R. Bonner


Cordle, John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Crouch, David
Jopling, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Crowder, F. P.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Quennell, Miss J. M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Raison, Timothy


Dean, Paul
Kershaw, Anthony
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kilfedder, James
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dixon, Piers
Kimball, Marcus
Redmond, Robert


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Drayson, G. B.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kinsey, J. R
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dykes, Hugh
Kirk, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Eden, Sir John
Kitson, Timothy
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne. N.)
Lambton, Lord
Rost, Peter


Emery, Peter
Lamont, Norman
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eyre, Reginald
Lane, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Farr, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Fidler, Michael
Le Merchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Shelton, William (Clapham)




Simeons, Charles




Sinclair, Sir George
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wall, Patrick


Skeet, T. H. H.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Tebbit, Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Soref, Harold
Temple, John M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Speed, Keith
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wiggin, Jerry


Spence, John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wilkinson, John


Sproat, Iain
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Winterton, Nicholls


Stainton, Keith
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Stanbrook, Ivor
Tilney, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Trew, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Stokes, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Younger, Hn. George


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Sutcliffe, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Tapsell, Peter
Waddington, David
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Mr. Walter Clegg.


NOES


Abse, Leo
Ewing, Harry
Lomas, Kenneth


Albu, Austen
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Loughlin, Charles


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Armstrong, Ernest
Foley, Maurice
McBride, Neil


Ashley, Jack
Foot, Michael
McCartney, Hugh


Ashton, Joe
Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank


Atkinson, Norman
Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Macintosh, John P.


Barnes, Michael
Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Garrett, W. E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Gourlay, Harry
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Baxter, William
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marsden, F.


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Bidwell, Sydney
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mayhew, Christopher


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamling, William
Meacher, Michael


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Booth, Albert
Hardy, Peter
Mikardo, Ian


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce


Bradley, Tom
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Milne, Edward


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hattersley, Roy
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Buchan, Norman
Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Horam, John
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland


Campbell, (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Ronald King


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Huckfield, Leslie
Oakes, Gordon


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ogden, Eric


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen. N.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian


Cocks, Michael (Bristol. S.)
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Cohen, Stanley
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Greville
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Padley, Walter


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Paget, R. T.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cronin, John
John, Brynmor
Pardoe, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Dalyell, Tam
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham.S)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prescott, John


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kaufman, Gerald
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Deakins, Eric
Kelley, Richard
Price, William (Rugby)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kinnock, Neil
Probert, Arthur


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lambie, David
Rankin, John


Dempsey, James
Lamborn, Harry
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dormand, J. D.
Latham, Arthur
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lawson, George
Richard, Ivor


Driberg, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunn, James A.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Eadie, Alex
Leonard, Dick
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp;R'dnor)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roper, John


Ellis, Tom
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Rose, Paul B.


English, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Evans, Fred
Lipton, Marcus
Rowlands, Ted




Sandelson, Neville







Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Taverne, Dick
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Whitehead, Phillip


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Whitlock, William


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Tinn, James
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Sillars, James
Torney, Tom
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Silverman, Julius
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Skinner, Dennis
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Smith, John (Lanarkshire. N.)
Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Spearing, Nigel
Wainwright, Edwin
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Spriggs, Leslie
Walden, Brian (B'ham, All Saints)
Wilson, William (Coventry. S.)


Steel, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woof, Robert


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wallace, George



Strang, Gavin
Watkins, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Weitzman, David
Mr. James Hamilton and


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Tom Pendry


Swain, Thomas

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put: —

The House divided:  Ayes 271, Noes 234.

Division No. 198.]
AYES
[7.10 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Iremonger, T. L.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Dykes, Hugh
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Eden, Sir John
James, David


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Astor, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Jessel, Toby


Awdry, Daniel
Emery, Peter
Johnson Smith, G (E. Grinstead)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Eyre, Reginald
Jopling Michael


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Farr, John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kellett-Bowman. Mrs. Elaine


Batstord, Brian
Fidler, Michael
Kershaw, Anthony


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kilfedder, James


Bell, Ronald
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kimball, Marcus


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Benyon, W.
Fookes, Miss Janet
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fortescue, Tim
Kinsey, J. R.


Biffen, John
Fowler, Norman
Kirk, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Fox, Marcus
Kitson, Timothy


Blaker, Peter
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fry, Peter
Knox, David


Body, Richard
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lambton, Lord


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Gardner, Edward
Lamont, Norman


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gibson-Watt, David
Lane, David


Bowden, Andrew
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bray, Ronald
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Le Marchant, Spencer


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Goodhart, Philip
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Goodhew, Victor
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gorst, John
Loveridge, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gower, Raymond
Luce, R. N.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N &amp; M)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Buck, Antony
Gray, Hamish
MacArthur, Ian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Green, Alan
McCrindle, R. A.


Burden, F. A.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McLaren, Martin


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Grylis, Michael
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Carlisle, Mark
Gurden, Harold
McMaster, Stanley


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Channon, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McNair-Wilson. Patrick (NewForest)


Chapman, Sydney
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maddan, Martin


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Madel, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Haselhurst, Alan
Maginnis, John E.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Havers, Michael
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hawkins, Paul
Marten, Neil


Cockeram, Eric
Hayhoe, Barney
Mather, Carol


Cooke, Robert
Hicks, Robert
Maude, Angus


Coombs, Derek
Higgins, Terence L.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Cooper, A. E.
Hiley, Joseph
Mawby, Ray


Cordle, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Holland, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cormack, Patrick
Holt, Miss Mary
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Costain, A. P.
Hordern, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman


Crouch, David
Hornby, Richard
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Crowder, F. P.
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Moate, Roger


Dean, Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Molyneaux, James


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Money, Ernie


Dixon, Piers
Hunt, John
Monks, Mrs. Connle


Douglas Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Monro, Hector




Montgomery, Fergus
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


More, Jasper
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Morrison, Charles
Rost, Peter
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Mudd, David
Russell, Sir Ronald
Tilney, John


Murton, Oscar
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Scott, Nicholas
Trew, Peter


Neave, Airey
Sharples, Richard
Tugendhat, Christopher


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Nott, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Onslow, Cranley
Simeons, Charles
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Owen, Idris (Stockport. N.)
Sinclair, Sir George
Waddington, David


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington
Wall, Patrick


Parkinson, Cecil
Soref, Harold
Ward, Dame Irene


Percival, Ian
Speed, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Spence, John
Wells, John (Maidstsone)


Pink, R. Bonner
Sproat, Iain
Wiggin, Jerry


Pounder, Rafton
Stainton, Keith
Wilkinson, John


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stokes, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Worsley, Marcus


Raison, Timothy
Sutcliffe, John
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tapsell, Peter
Younger, Hn. George


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Taylor,Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)



Redmond, Robert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Walter Clegg.


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Temple, John M



Ridley, Hn. Nicholas




NOES


Abse, Leo
de Frietas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Janner, Greville


Albu, Austen
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dempsey, James
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Ashley, Jack
Dormand, J. D.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Ashton, Joe
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
John, Brynmor


Atkinson, Norman
Driberg, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunn, James A.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Barnes, Michael
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Ellis, Tom
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Baxter, William
English, Michael
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Fred
Kaufman, Gerald


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ewing, Harry
Kelley, Richard


Bidwell, Sydney
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kinnock, Neil


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lambie, David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lamborn, Harry


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Foley, Maurice
Lomond, James


Booth, Albert
Foot, Michael
Latham, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Ford, Ben
Lawson, George


Bradley, Tom
Forrester, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Freeson, Reginald
Leonard, Dick


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Garrett, W. E.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gourlay, Harry
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Buchan, Norman
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lipton, Marcus


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lomas, Kenneth


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Loughlin, Charles


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hamling, William
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hardy, Peter
McBride, Neil


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Harper, Joseph
McCartney, Hugh


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McElhone, Frank


Cohen, Stanley
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McGuire, Michael


Concannon, J. D.
Hattersley, Roy
Mackintosh, John P.


Conlan, Bernard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Maclennan, Robert


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Heffer, Eric S.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)…


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hilton, W. S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Crawshaw, Richard
Horam, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cronin, John
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marsden, F.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mayhew, Christopher


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hunter, Adam
Mikardo, Ian


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Millan, Bruce


Deakins, Eric

Miller, Dr. M. S.







Milne, Edward
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mitchell, B. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee. E.)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tinn, James


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Richard, Ivor
Torney, Tom


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tuck, Raphael


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Urwin, T. W.


Moyle, Roland
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'n &amp; R'dnor)
Varley, Eric G.


Murray, Ronald King
Roper, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Oakes, Gordon
Rose, Paul B.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Ogden, Eric
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


O'Halloran, Michael
Rowlands, Edward
Wallace, George


O'Malley, Brian
Sandelson, Neville
Watkins, David


Orbach, Maurice
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Weitzman, David


Oswald, Thomas
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wellbeloved, James


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Short, Mrs. Renée (Whampton.N.E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Padley, Walter
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Paget, R. T.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitehead, Phillip


Palmer, Arthur
Sillars, James
Whitlock, William


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Silverman, Julius
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Pardoe, John
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Pavitt, Laurie
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Pendry, Tom
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Pentland, Norman
Steel, David
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Perry, Ernest G.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Strang, Gavin
Woof, Robert


Prescott, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.



Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Price, William (Rugby)
Swain, Thomas
Mr. Ernest Armstrong an


Probert, Arthur
Taverne, Dick
Mr. James Hamilton


Rankin, John
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, believing that continued improvement in the quality and quantity of industrial training is vital to the national economy, welcomes Her Majesty's Government's recent actions, outlined in 'Training for the Future', to expand and improve Government training facilities, and further believes that the changes in the system of training boards proposed in the consultative document will not only provide the basis for overcoming the present difficulties but will also provide the increased opportunities for training so necessary for our national prosperity.

Orders of the Day — THAMES BARRIER AND FLOOD PREVENTION BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I propose the Question, I should say that I am not selecting the Motion in the names of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) and the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved), That the Bill be considered upon this day six months. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Acton, in Clause 36, page 28, line 11, at end insert
'as to the effects of closure of the barrier gates on the flow or regime of the river, or'
can be discussed with the main Motion, and, if he wishes a Division on it, he may have it later in the proceedings.

Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: It is a great pleasure to me to propose this Bill on behalf of the Greater London Council for a number of reasons.
It is the first Greater London Council Bill I have had the honour to commend to the House. I am delighted that it is supported by local authorities in Essex and Kent as well. It is a subject which has been dear to my heart for a long time. Before I came into the House I earned my living as a journalist and worked for theFinancial Times. In 1967 I wrote an article about the Thames barrier, and I have had a personal interest in the subject ever since. So for me it is not an ordinary Bill but a Bill in which I personally am extremely interested and about which I am very concerned. Another agreeable feature about the Bill is that it has to a large degree bipartisan support. I realise that it may also be said to have some bipartisan opposition, but it is certainly a Bill which has a good deal of bipartisan support. Finally, and most important of all, it is a Bill which is of immense importance to the people of London as a whole.
The need for a Thames barrier is beyond doubt. Forty-five square miles of London are currently at risk in the


sense that they are below the highestrecorded water level; and 45 square miles at risk is a really phenomenal statistic. Within those 45 square miles live 800,000 people and they have 250,000 dwellings. During the day many people come into my constituency from outside, and by day over 1 million people would be at risk in the event of a serious Thames flood. There are 72 Underground stations, 46 miles of Underground track, 17 power stations and even this very Palace of Westminster itself which would be in the firing line. In addition and notto be ignored, much of the artistic and cultural heritage of London, a very large part of the cultural and artistic heritage of this country, the Tate Gallery, the National Gallery and our other important collections, would quite literally go down the drain if the Bill were not passed.
We have recently seen the horror of the floods in Florence. A flood in London would be an infinitely worse catastrophe, both in terms of the money involved and in human suffering, and there would be the terrible tragedy of the destruction of a large part of the country's artistic heritage. The cost is difficult to assess but a figure of £1,000 million has been suggested and that is, if anything, an underestimate, since I do not think one can really put a figure on the value of people's homes and possessions.
In talking about the terrible things which could happen if the Bill were not to go through, I am not being alarmist or trying needlessly to frighten hon. Members into supporting a Bill towards which they might otherwise feel disinclined to support. There is a one in 30 chance in any given year of a serious flood in the middle of London. The raising of the walls and various other flood precaution measures being taken by the Greater London Council and other local authorities will reduce that figure to a one in 200 chance, but that is not good enough.
I give two examples. Before the search for oil in the North Sea began the odds against finding it were 30 to one or thereabouts, but look at how successful we have been in finding oil in the North Sea. I hope we shall not be equally successful in having a Thames flood in London. The 200 to one figure is not quite as long odds as one would like.

A horse called Manitoulin is running in the Derby and the odds against its winning were 200 to one against, before Lestor Piggott was given the mount. If one compares Manitoulin's chaces of winning the Derby with the chances of a flood in London one realises the importance of having a flood barrier to guard us against that particular predicament.
The easiest defence against flooding in London would be the building of higher walls, but this is not in itself practicable because London, like Venice, is sinking, so that it would be like a labour of Sisyphus to start building walls to a greater height now when they would not be satisfactory in some years' time, and would have to be topped up again.
In any case, to ensure the safety of central London would mean building walls 6 ft. higher than they are at present between Woolwich Reach and Putney Bridge and one has only to look at, say, the beautiful Terrace we have here at the Palace of Westminster, or walk along the Embankment on either side of the river, to see what would be the terrible effect of building walls 6 ft. higher than they are now. The River Thames would be cut off from the rest of London and a great amenity would be lost to the people. One would then have to build up everything behind the walls and the cost of that would plainly be an unacceptable proposition.
It is the object of this Bill to reduce the risk of flooding in central London to one in 1,000 in the year 2030 A.D. As I say, London is sinking, so of course between now and 2030 the odds will be better than one in 1,000. And a one in 1,000 chance of of our being drowned is better than a one in 30 chance, as it is at present, and better than one in 200 which will in due course result.
It is vital that work under the Bill should begin as soon as possible. The GLC cannot commit itself to the project till the Bill is through and we ought to get the Bill through this House tonight, otherwise there will be a delay of several months. Because of the state of congestion of the parliamentary programme it is not possible to be confident about when another Bill would come before us. As it is, the GLC is thinking in terms of 1978 for the completion of this


great project, and when one considers that in sitting here we have a one in 30 chance of being drowned during one of our debates one can perceive that it is a matter of great urgency to get the Bill through. When one considers the suffering and the damage which would be caused to millions of people in London if the Bill were not to go through, I hope very much that hon. Members on both sides of the House will find it possible to support the Bill this evening, or, at any rate, not to oppose it.
By any standards the Thames barrier is a major project even in the age of Concorde. The barrier with its associated works will cost about £75 million at 1970 prices, and when one considers what happens to the value of money over the years one can appreciate that £75 million is likely to be an under-estimate in real money. The Government will pay 65 per cent. of the cost of this and the GLC the rest and the associated works outside the GLC area will be paid for by river authorities, which will get 80 per cent. grant. We are talking of very considerable sums of money indeed. I hope the House will feel it right for me to explain why the decision to proceed in the way that has beenchosen was taken and to say a little more about some of the implications of the Bill, because I know that there are hon. Gentlemen who are interested in this matter.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: As a provincial Member, not wishing to dissent from much of what the hon. Gentleman has said so far, I have to say that we must get the facts right. The £75 million refers only to the engineering work on the barrier. Before that is undertaken it will be necessary to strengthen the banks way downthe river seaward to Erith or beyond. That will almost double the original cost. Whatever comes out in the final analysis, it will obviously exceed the estimated figures. I speak as a provincial Member who has an interest in the Bill from another angle and I feel we had better get the facts right. This will cost the nation much more than £75 million. I am not saying that it is not worth it and that time will not prove it to be worth while.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan: (Reading)rose—

Mr. Tugendhat: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. It is better not to have an intervention on an intervention.

Mr. Tugendhat: My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Dr. Vaughan), who was a distinguished figure in the GLC, will, I am sure, be able to make a useful intervention on this point. I chose my words carefully when I said that this was an order of magnitude. The hon. Gentleman will find that the £75 million covers the barrier and its immediately associated works, in other words the bulk of the work. I accept that there will be other works undertaken as a result of the barrier and that is why I made the point of mentioning that works undertaken by other authorities will also be receiving a substantial grant from the Government I am talking only about the principal project. That there will be other ancillary costs I completely recognise. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the £75 million covers the principal works related to the barrier, including the raising of the banks and things of that nature directly connected with it. Perhaps we can reurn to that later.
A number of possibilities were discussed. One was a dam but this naturally raises great problems of siltation and pollution. It would also require special facilities for shipping to get past the dam. A moving structure, something which could be taken out of the river altogether, would avoid or at least reduce the principal problems, and that brings us to the question of what sort of moving structure there should be. One possibility considered was a drop gate but the disadvantage of that, as hon. Gentlemen who have followed this matter will know, is that it is limited to a span of 500 feet. That would not suffice as the river is about three times as wide as that at the place in question. There was the possibility of a horizontally retractable structure but the difficulty with that is that in times of crisis when the river is high and the water is moving fast there could easily be a blockage on the bottom of the river which would prevent the gate from being properly closed.
After careful consideration of all the various possibilities the expert advice came down very firmly in favour of what


is known as a rising sector gate, or several such gates which are housed in the bottom but whose operating mechanisms are above water. This particular device has a number of important advantages. One is that it does not have so far to travel since it is already in situ and it has only to be raised. Another is that it is less prone to blockages and interruptions and a third advantage is that it fits readily into the river in the circumstances which we find in the Thames.
We must take into account in devising a structure of this sort the interests both of those who are in danger of being drowned and of the shipping which uses the river. There is the necessity, too, to guard against the possibility of error. If there was only one rising gate, obviously if anything went wrong with the works the whole thing would not work properly and the barrier would lose much of its advantage. If the river is divided into multiple openings or sections, rather like a bridge is divided into arches, even if all the gates do not work as perfectly as one would like at the moment of crisis, we can be sure of a fairly substantial margin of safety. That is an important consideration.
The interests of the shipping companies, the ports and the docks must also be taken into account and this brings us to the openings of 200 feet. That does not sound much for a ship to go through and there were those who suggested that the opening should be wider than 200 feet. Hon. Gentlemen may be interested to know that Tower Bridge has a single opening of 200 feet and has worked satisfactorily for a long time. Westminster Bridge, which we can all see from the Terrace, has arches which have a span of 110 feet and I do not ever recall seeing any accident there and I imagine that other hon. Members do not recall seeing accidents there. So 200 feet is not at all bad.
There has also been trouble over the site of the proposed barrier. I hope that Silvertown with Woolwich Reach is now generally accepted as a desirable place to put it. It is as near to the sea as possible, which minimises the need for downstream defences, and it also minimises the effect on existing and proposed land usage in other parts along the river. Naturally we do not want to interfere with either development in dockland or

proposed housing development. It might be possible to argue that we should have the barrier at the east end of Woolwich Reach, but that would mean that it would be near a bend in the river which would make it difficult for shipping coming upstream. Silvertown is conveniently located and has the other advantage that land is readily available to be purchased by agreement.
The House may also want to know something about how often the barrier will be used in order to assess its impact on river traffic. Obviously the answer to that depends in large part on weather conditions and these are notoriously difficult to predict. In a typical year we could expect to have one closure late on a rising tide for about three or four hours and once every 10 years an early closure of perhaps about 10 hours. There would also be some practice closures to make sure the thing was working and this would naturally take place at a time convenient to shipping.
This brings me to the question of a lock, which is of great interest to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), who, as everyone recognises, has great expertise on river matters and has been interested in this for a good deal longer than many other people. I know that be and others like him have felt that a lock would be a desirable advantage. The difficulty about a lock is that the throughput, I am advised by the experts, is about three ships an hour, so that 12 would go through on a short closure and 30 on a long one. The cost of adding a lock to this scheme is £4 million. I know that may not sound a tremendous lot when we are talking about £75 million, but even so it is right that the House should be cautious about spending taxpayers' money needlessly and £4 million is a substantial amount of money. I suggest that the number of ships that would use the lock would not justify this expenditure. I would point out, however, that nothing in the Bill precludes the building of a lock at a later date. In going ahead with the Bill now we are not ruling out a lock should it prove necessary in future.
I turn to the question of half-tide control, which the hon. Member for Acton and others have been considering. For those not familiar with the ways of the river, this means simply using the


barrier to hold water upstream so that the mudbanks would be permanently covered. This could be done either on a permanent basis or at weekends. Obviously if we did this we would need a lock because the barrier would be in use so much more than would otherwise be the case. The protagonists of half-tide operation believe that it would enormously increase the amenity value of the river and that is a very good cause indeed, deserving of serious consideration. As we stand on the Terrace we might consider the advantages of seeing the mudbanks covered and the river high all the time.
There are however opposing views. In particular those who are interested in the bird life of our City believe that if the mudbanks were covered it would have a prejudicial effect on the bird life in the middle of London, especially on the gulls and other birds which scavenge on the mudbanks. When we consider the history of our City, the ebb and flow of the tide has been part of the London scene and has led to some of the finest pictures that have been painted of London, from Canaletto onwards. The advantages of half-tide operation are substantial but there are equally, on the amenity side, substantial arguments of artistic and ornithological kinds, as well as other kinds, which deserve to be taken into account. Bird lovers do not always get their due, as we may see with the proposed building of the third London airport at Maplin Sands.
There are other problems concerned with half-tide operation. There are unforeseeable implications with pollution and siltation. I say "unforeseeable" because when that great project the Aswan Dam was built no one appreciated the terrible effects which it would have on the marine life of the River Nile. As those who follow these matters will know, it has had a disastrous effect on the fish in the Nile and ruined the fishing there, in the Delta and in the Mediterranean. I would hardly compare the River Nile with the River Thames, but when one sees the type of unforeseen disasters that have occurred there, or in Lake Victoria as a result of the building of the dam there, one realises that it is not right to proceed in matters of this kind without being extremely sure and certain of the precise ecological results. This is not the kind of thing with which we can take risks.
The River Thames used, after all, to be one of the finest rivers for fish in the whole country. It used to have everything, from salmon to shrimps and lampreys and goodness knows what else. As a result of the sterling efforts of the GLC, and before it the LCC, the Thames is-once again becoming a fish river. We have 57 varieties of fish back in the Thames. Whether we will ever have salmon back remains to be seen, but we are doing very well. It would be a pity to prejudice this in any way. The Port of London, as the responsible authority, naturally wishes to be quite certain about the pollution and siltation results before supporting such a view.

Dr. Vaughan: I apologise for interrupting such a well thought-out and skilful exposition, but I want to ask my hon. Friend whether he can clear up one or two points. He has mentioned figures and we must be clear about this. He has spoken about one in 20 and one in 30. One of the dangers that I have heard is that there is at present a risk of one in 10 of water rising to the statutory defence levels. I shall be pleased to know whether this is correct. On the siltation side, which is the point on which I wanted to come in earlier, am I right in thinking that there has been some unexpected and serious siltation as a result of the changes around the Woolwich Ferry area, with the result that many of us are concerned that even without the rising barrier the installations around the barrier as suggested will lead to a serious siltation problem? Can my hon. Friend reassure us about this?

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Tugendhat: We are not at loggerheads on the figures, as may appear to be the case. There is, as I understand it, a one in 10 chance of the water reaching the highest level against which we have protection. Obviously, if the water reaches that level we are in serious danger and we would hope that the odds could be reduced. It is one in 10 that the water reaches that level and one in 30 that it actually overflows.
My hon. Friend's point concerning siltation is extremely well taken and shows the necessity of being very careful in these matters. The Central Electricity Generating Board is also very worried here because it believes that a


continuous flow of tidal water is necessary for its power station operations and that if we do not have tidal water the temperature will rise and this may affect the way in which the power stations operate. None of this means that half-tide operation should be ruled out for all time. What it means is that before committing ourselves to half-tide operation we should be extremely careful about its implications. We should look carefully at all the possibilities on both sides.
The Bill is a matter of supreme urgency. Here we are with a one in 10 chance of crisis and a one in 30 chance of being flooded almost as we stand here.

Mr. John Loveridge: I was impressed to hear the care with which my hon. Friend spoke of the possible consequences and the uncertainty which must exist in any project of this nature. However, my constituents lie below the barrier and they are asking whether the use of this barrier will cause a backwash which may extend flooding into Rainham, for example. Can we have some assurances about that?

Mr. Tugendhat: I am delighted to say that the Bill is promoted by the GLC and supported by the Kent and Essex River Authorities. Certainly if the barrier were built without any kind of work taking place on the river it would have harmful effects. However, the barrier is only the centre piece of a whole programme to improve the safety of the river. When the flood defences downstream from the barrier have been completed, the work taking place simultaneously with the work on the barrier, my hon. Friend's constituents will be a great deal safer than they are at present. It was my hon. Friend's constituents and others in that part of the world rather than the people of central London who suffered the greatest loss when the Thames burst its banks in the early 1950s.
That should remind us of the urgency of the Bill. By all means let us consider ways in which it can be improved, by all means let us consider improving the barrier once work has begun. However, this is a Bill to which I ask the House to give a passage this evening.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I must first congratulate the hon. Member for

the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) on his introduction of this Bill. As he said, it is his maiden Bill.
The hon. Gentleman was very kind to me about certain matters in which I have taken an interest, but I must confess that I have a great deal to learn. I, too, have been involved in this matter for a considerable time. In fact, I first took an interest in it in 1953 when I was helping to fill sandbags on the East Coast. There was delay under many Governments and many public bodies who danced round each other like people in a ballroom until 1968, when the GLC really got something going.
I want to assure the House that the Motion in my name which may look dramatic in its intention to hold up the Bill for six months was merely a procedural matter to ensure that the Bill was debated tonight. Whatever we may feel about its merits or demerits, I am sure that we all agree that we ought to debate this very important matter so that its provisions can be scrutinised and so that history will say that the House performed its duty in debating it.
Likewise, the Amendment in my name is a probing one. The words of the Amendment were contained in the Bill when it came before the House and received a formal Second Reading. The Amendment seeks only to put back words which were deleted in Committee. They are not words that I have dreamed up myself. They appeared in the Bill when it came to this House from the GLC, and I have a special reason for wanting them restored.
The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster said that the history of this Measure had been sometimes in agreement and sometimes controversial. I wish not to oppose its passage but merely to debate certain of its merits.
There are certain omissions. I have in mind the studies which led up to the Bill, and I wish to draw attention to those. The Select Committee which considered the Bill did some excellent work. I am glad to see the Chairman present. I assure him that I have read six of the seven days of the Committee's proceedings. The Committee did a good job. However, it was unaware of some of the


wider considerations raised in this House in our earlier debates.
This matter has been under discussion in three debates already. On 9th November, 1970, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) raised the matter on the Adjournment. He hopes to be here later but at the moment he is serving on the Standing Committee which is considering the Finance Bill. My hon. Friend's debate was followed by debates on 25th May, 1971, and 1st July, 1971, on the Greater London Council Bill, because it was thought right that certain of the matters connected with the Bill should be investigated at an early date. For that reason some hon. Members on this side of the House did not object on Second Reading as they wanted to give it a fair wind.
On the debate of 1st July, 1971,I asked a number of questions about the proposals for the barrier then available to the House. Unfortunately, I do not feel that those questions have been answered very satisfactorily. As I said, if we are to look at this Measure properly, it is right that this should be on the record.
There are three matters which arose out of that debate to which I wish to draw attention. The first is the design of the barrier which has been adopted, and what led up to it. The second is the way in which the navigation authorities concerned were or were not consulted. The third is the fact that we have not had any explanation from the GLC of connections between themselves, the navigation authorities and the Department of the Environment about the statement of the Secretary of State in December, 1970, on the design of the barrier.
The Secretary of State for the Environment announced in a Press statement in December, 1970, that he had decided that the barrier should be of the rising sector type. He said that it was a recommendation of the GLC. I will not rehearse my speech on 1st July, but it is on the record and it is clear that there was no recommendation from the GLC at that stage. As I understand it, the GLC did not approve the design until after the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
I did not think that that is good enough on a matter of this importance. It is not necessarily a matter that I wish to disinter by holding up the Bill. That

would be irresponsible. But I have the gravest doubt about the way in which the design was worked out and the consequences of the events which followed. There may be good reasons for the adoption of the design. But the way in which it was done was wrong. There should have been more public knowledge at the time.
The second matter concerns the relationship with the navigation authorities. The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster referred to Tower Bridge. The vessels which used to move through that bridge are much smaller than those moving up and down Woolwich Reach, they were fewer in number, and they are not under way at speed. The navigation risks attached to the barrier are such that the promoters have agreed to put tugs there on a permanent basis. The opening of 200 feet is less than the navigation authorities wanted. As I said on 1st July, Trinity House wrote saying that it had written to the Secretary of State for the Environment in December, 1970, stating that
…a central drop gate opening, with a minimum width of 350 ft., flanked on either side by a 200 ft. rising sector gate was favoured, and that four 200-ft. rising sector gates were not attractive as they would require elaborate fendering.
The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster said that probably multiple gates were desirable. However, it would have been better to have had a direct comparison between four gates of the drop gate type with openings of perhaps 250 or 300 feet and the scheme now adopted. It is about that that I complained. As far as I know, that was never done.
The document suggesting that the rising sector design be adopted is a very thin one. I referred to it in our last debate. It is contained in Volume 3 of the second report of studies, "Barrier gate for 200 ft. clear opening". There is no reference to the GLC's letter. The terms of reference for this design were self-fulfilling. Furthermore, the report is not dated. For all that I know, it could have been the result of a telephone conversation.
This has not been in dispute, and it is not good enough for a design which is supposed to protect London from flooding and which is to cost up to £100 million together with its defence works.


I am sorry that the two alternative structures, in both of which technical problems were involved, were not subjected to direct comparison, especially as one was preferred by the navigation authorities, and many very large ships still use Woolwich Reach.

Mr. J. T. Price: I have been following what my hon. Friend has said as diligently as possible. I served on the Select Committee which considered the Bill. The promoters attended all the sittings of the Committee for the best part of three weeks. Their technical advisers gave evidence and were cross-examined thoroughly by those who petitioned against the Bill. What puzzles me is how my hon. Friend explains that the promoters of the Bill were never brought up against the considerations that he now raises. I thought that they were disposed of in Committee. If there had been anything in them, they would have been brought up by those who represented Petitions to the Committee.

Mr. Spearing: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point. It illustrates the usefulness of the procedure of this House in having a Committee stage and a consideration. If my reply is somewhat lengthy, perhaps it will be seen in that context.
There were no objections from the navigation authorities. They accepted reluctantly the design imposed upon them, and that occurred at a more private meeting towards the end of 1970 in the Department of the Environment. This is a murky matter. I understand that their arms were twisted. They were told that this design of barrier was not only cheaper but that it could be built more quickly than their alternative. They were told, further, that if they persisted with their objection, they could be said to be stopping the protection of London from flood. Any petitioner who had come before my hon. Friend's Committee at that stage would have been told, "It is too late. We have started designing the chosen type of barrier. It has been under design for two years. The other one was dropped two years previously. If you persist in wanting a wider gate for navigation, you may well be holding up flood protection for London for two years." My suggestion to my hon. Friend is that no petitioner would dare do such

a thing, any more than any hon. Member would dare hold up the Bill because of this matter. I hope that that at least satisfies my hon. Friend about what I think happened.
8.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster has kindly outlined the principle of half-tide activity, but he has perhaps left out one of two important phrases, and I should like to mention those next. The half tide principle would not necessarily work all the time, and that is a cardinal point. In a Press release on 20th January, 1970, the GLC said:
Provided further investigations show that the problems of delays and siltation can be solved at reasonable cost, a barrier capable of preventing the tide from falling below half tide level upstream could have amenity advantages.'
I think that that is universally accepted.
The question now is the way in which the GLC went about considering the problems associated with this scheme, and I agree that there are many. Let us take siltation first. In its report of studies the GLC showed that the silting studies were associated with continuous half-tide working, and in a letter to me the Chairman of the GLC Public Services Committee, Mr. Black, from whom I have received every co-operation as, indeed, I have from all the officers, said:
Expert opinion would probably support your supposition that the application of half-tide control on say 50 tides a year at weekends would have comparatively little effect on the pattern of siltation in the river…Our problems, however, are somewhat wider than this",
and he stresses the urgency of the matter.
Whilst I agree that continuous half-tide working has many problems, including ground water either side of the river and the power station point which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, when it is used at weekends in the summer, or possibly on public holidays, and every alternate tide—at any rate day tides only—the problems are very much less. Unfortunately, the GLC has not found out what they are. Therefore, it may be that the problems which we have are far in excess of what they would be if half-tide working were confined to those periods when it would be of the greatest advantage.
The GLC was aware of the advantages of half-tide working, and that was stressed in many Council documents. But if one wanted to try that out there would have to be a provision in the Bill to enable one to see whether it worked, whether there were going to be any silting problems associated with it, and whether the barrier could work like that. There was provision in the Bill when it came before the House on Second Reading for those experiments to take place.
I concede at once that it would be inappropriate for the Bill to contain measures for permanent half-tide working, even on the basis of 50 tides a year. Of course, that would need further consideration and another Bill, but that was not what was proposed. What was proposed were powers to close the barrier occasionally for the purpose. It had been the intention of those who support the navigational and half-tide experiment and interest to seek an Amendment, possibly in another place, for powers for the GLC to put in a lock as well, but I understand that that is not now possible because in a Private Bill of this sort one cannot add another "work" which is not in the Bill at the beginning.
This is rather a serious point, because it meant that the GLC contemplated blocking the river for this experiment without putting in a lock at the start. That seems to me to be a major fault in the design of the Bill. It was perhaps a point that was noticed and the view was taken that the proposal would have to be withdrawn anyway as the petitioners rightly petitioned against the provision because of possible effects of silting and blocking of the river. The GLC put it in knowing that it could not reasonably remain because there was no lock which would be concomitant with that provision.
The Bill as presented has misled many people who thought "It is all right. There is provision for experimental working." The GLC must have known that it would not go ahead with a lock because there was no provision for a lock. It is this feature which is perhaps most important of all because if an iron curtain is to be flung across the river at any time the psychological effect on navigation or on

people who would use the river for commercial purposes would be considerable.
It is said that the Thames is closed 10 days a year because of fog. It may be, but adding two or three days a year for tidal surge is something tangible. The risk of being held by a barrier without a lock would no doubt be considered by shipping interests and business men as something of a deterrent to the use of the river.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned one day a year, and 3¼ hours. I am surprised that the GLC has said that. I hope that that is what will occur, but there is no guarantee that that will be so. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has mentioned a one in ten chance. If that is so, the barrier would need to be closed very much more frequently than that.

Mr. Tugendhat: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, but I think that there is a non sequitur there. There is a one in ten chance of the river reaching the highest flood prevention level at the moment. Not only are we building walls higher than the barrier itself, but we are preventing the water from rising upstream from the barrier. Therefore, the one in ten chance about which the hon. Gentleman is talking will be obsolete by the time the barrier is complete.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He did not mention one in ten in relation to the height. Would he not agree that the wall heights are being raised by only 18 inches? If there were a risk of the water rising to 18 feet, the barrier would be closed because nobody would be able to tell what a surge would do as it came up river. This is a point to bear in mind.
One must also bear in mind the point made by the hon. Member for Horn-church (Mr. Loveridge), that the later the barrier is closed the greater the reflecting wave. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford knows this. Therefore, when the GLC says that in a typical year it will be a late closure, it is omitting the fact that in Committee it was emphasised that the important thing to do was to close the barrier as near the previous water level


as possible, and that means it is closed for a much longer length of time.

Dr. Vaughan: If the hon. Gentleman accepts that the average closure time per year is 4¼ hours, that is more than the figure given earlier. The other figure is that there is a chance every 10 years of up to 10 hours. Does the hon Gentleman still feel that it is worth while going to the enormous additional expense of putting in a lock?

Mr. Spearing: I am aware that the GLC said in its statement:
In a typical year there may be one closure late on the rising tide for, say, 3¼ hours and, in addition, once every 10 years an early closure of, say, 10 hours duration".
Those are not firm forecasts. There is a reference to "say, 3¼ hours", which is only 1½ hours each side of high tide. I should have thought that any operator of the barrier would have enough problems if he had to consider the navigational aspects of having to give notice to shipping. He would be in a much better position if there were a lock here because that element of closing the river to navigation would not be present.
The GLC has said that it would cost £4 million. I do not know whether that is an accurate figure. The size of lock need not necessarily be for sea-going ships. That would be very costly and big.
But I was coming to the point about the amount of traffic in the river. The GLC handout is not very realistic. The hon. Member mentioned three lockings an hour for large ships. That gives a very small throughput. The amount of traffic passing through Woolwich Reach at the moment is described in the GLC's table on page 9 of its second report of studies. This shows that in six-and-a-half hours on an average tide—not the maximum—there are 33 river craft and strings of barges passing through. That is not the sort of figure that we have here. The maximum is 53. I assume that this mention of strings of barges means up to seven craft and does not necessarily count each barge as a separate barge.
It goes on:
An adjustment should be made to these figures to arrive at a forecast of future traffic levels.
It points out that traffic is going down, but, as has been said in the House and

frequently in the country, irrespective of whether we enter the Common Market or not, there are new developments in water transport, particularly in intercontinental transport, the new type of LASH lighters might put this figure up
If we accept the figure of an average of 33 craft on an average tide, at least there is more traffic passing through the reach than is supposed in the supporting statement. If we find that half-time working is practicable—the investigations have been unrealistic so far, because they have asked the wrong questions and have put down all the wrong desiderata—it cannot be tried out, because there is no lock.
It is these matters which cause some of us—excellent though many of the technical matters concerned with the Bill are—to pause and say that in certain respects it is wanting. In particular it is wanting because the Bill, due to its private nature, cannot be amended to include powers to construct a lock without going right back to the beginning. In terms of safety this is not possible.
We understand that the silting problem in Woolwich Reach is considerable and that the construction of a lock might introduce many other factors which have not yet been evaluated. But this should be looked at. We should have a direct statement from the GLC. It has conceded that 50 tides a year on intermittent half-time working is not what its investigations considered.
We have here a conflict of interest—the age-old conflict between the navigator and the landsman who requires flood prevention. In this respect, the navigator has been knocked on the head well and truly. Not enough consideration has been given to the design of the barriers or to the possibilities of half-tide working, which would in the end, for leisure purposes certainly, be of advantage, possibly to nagivators in the round.
There was not a properly considered compromise in the type of design. I hope that, in summing up, the Minister or the hon. Member will assure us that in future there will not only be proper consideration of these points but also future legislation, if the way is cleared for the sort of amenities which we feel the Thames deserves.
If nothing else, I hope that this debate will show that there is interest in this


subject. If this had not been raised now, it might have been said in later discussion "It went through the Commons and no one raised a cheep". So often, when facilitating Measures in this House, hon. Members do not wish to take up the time of the House or force a vote, and promoters then say that objections have not been raised. That is not true in this case.
Of course we want the Bill to go through, but I at least regret that certain obvious and common sense questions were not asked at the right time, and above all that the sequence of events surrounding the discussions among the Great London Council, the Department of the Environment and the various navigational bodies was most unsatisfactory. I hope that, if a Measure of this sort ever comes before the House again, or if any such structure is built in any other river in this country, the arrangements will better in this respect.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. David James: I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing). We are both members of the inter-party committee on the recreational use of waterways. He may not know it, but I made my maiden speech on this very subject nearly 13 years ago. He has performed a public service in bringing up this matter as he has.
The hon. Member has paid tribute to the Committee of which the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. J. T. Price) and I were members. I have been authorised by the rest to say that we were entirely at one in our decision to grant the case to the promoters, although the hon. Gentleman will recognise that many of the points which he has raised today were not raised in Committee. We could only consider those matters which were raised. One might feel that if people felt very strongly about locks and design and so on, they had ample opportunity. We had 17 petitions to deal with, and another two or three would not have made much difference to us.
The answer to the constitutional problem which the hon. Member has raised is that it is up to petitioners to petition at the right time and not to expect the House—thank God, the hon. Gentleman is not asking this—to reach ad hoc

decisions on these matters the day after the recess, when we are of necessity too ill-informed on the technical detail.
So the Committee, composed of two hon. Members from either side of the House, was absolutely unanimous in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) over the extreme urgency of the Bill. I will not quibble with him over the figures. Various estimates have come up, but a simple formula is that for every inch the barometer falls the sea level rises about a foot. Therefore, if the barometer falls from 32 to 27, there is five feet more tide inherent in the situation anyway.
When the barometer prophesies a gale, if the track of the depression across the North Sea is right, that gives rise to a north-easterly gale. Therefore, there is not only an inherently higher level, but the surge meets the counter-surge coming up the Channel, and there are only two places left for it to go; one is the Elbe or the Rhine and the other is the Thames.
This could cause a tragic situation. Whereas in the Middle Ages the Thames was tidal only up to the Pool of London, high tides are now just reaching Teddington Weir. Whether the odds are, as I was led to believe, 60 to 1 against, at this minute, or 30 to 1 against as the hon. Member for Acton said, as this construction will take six years to complete we can divide our figures by six in either event.
I agree with the hon. Member that the prospect of this House, the whole of Green Park, Buckingham Palace, halfway up St. James' Street, Victoria Street and so on being flooded during the next six years on odds which vary from 10 to 1 against in my submission and 5 to 1 against in his—the difference is neither here nor there—is horrifying. I am glad that he recognises that above all we must get on with the Bill.
If one were a film writer, one could write a good script on the subject. One starts to pick up these indications at Wick and they can be tracked down the East coast over a 12-hour period. If one wanted to write one of these "echo of doom" books, one could write a splendid scenario of the disaster to inner London which was correctly predicted at Wick—the depression deepens and the surge


increases as they travel down the east coast, and it may reach the Wash with six hours to go, during which people in 45 square miles of London would know that the Underground system had to be evacuated, everyone had to try to get his books, pictures and chattels away from the scene, the House of Commons would be adjourned by you, Sir, and we would all have a "run from school", which we had before only when the Thames flooded the House drains. This is a very real possibility, and I am glad that everyone is seeing it in that way.
Reverting to the recreational use of the Thames, I accept that it would obviously be impossible to introduce a lock other than possibly by negotiation at a later stage. In six years, much can change. I have today consulted informally various users of the Thames about whether this barrage, if used operationally in such a way as to maintain half-time levels during weekends, bank holidays and so on, would prove a difficulty, and I find that the objections are still quite formidable.
No one can predict what will happen in future. At present the future of the King George V Dock is in doubt. However, 12,000-ton liners are still going there, but whether they will continue to do so in the six years while the barrier is being built nobody knows. Coasters are also involved, going up and down the Thames, and they make frequent use of this water at weekends.
One must also bear in mind the barge traffic, details of which the Committee was given. I am told by one barge company which I consulted informally that it tries to do away with weekend working but requires to use the water about one weekend in four. I am informed that a string of six barges had to go up on the tide yesterday.
A question which escaped my notice and that of a number of others is the fact that companies operating barges and tugs do most of their maintenance work at weekends; and if there is a half-tide situation above the barrage at weekends, it will be impossible for them to dry out their barges and tugs to enable them to be repaired. There are, therefore, some formidable operational difficulties.
At the same time the situation is quite fluid in relation to traffic flow on the Thames. This situation is changing from

year to year. We may find that what is a great operational problem today will be a negligible one in six years' time owing to greater use being made of Tilbury and Felixstowe and because of changes generally which will have taken place by them. I suggest that the best course open to the House is to give the Bill a fair wind, bearing in mind the unparallelled disaster that could take place unless it gets through tonight.
Let us see what common sense and negotiation can do. I can speak on behalf of all members of the Committee when I say that the GLC has been anxious to meet people's points of view Thirteen out of 17 petitions were settled out of court, as it were. There is a real wish to help, and I believe that anything that was not brought before the Committee can be settled by negotiation in the next few months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Loveridge) expressed worry about the counter-surge effects. We went into this in considerable detail, and the answer is that at the point where the barrage will be built the counter-surge effect could be of the order of 6 ft. By the time one gets right down the Thames it has been reduced to 3 ins. and everyone—the Essex, Kent and other local authorities—involved in raising defences knows exactly what the counter-surge could be at each particular point.
While I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, which is of extreme importance, I assure him that everything put before the Committee was gone into very seriously. Possibly in future it might be better if more matters were laid before the Committee. We spent 28 hours on the Bill. We were the first Committee ever to go to the site of one of these projects, and that was due to the initiative of the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is at that point that matters of this sort should be raised, rather than on the Floor of the House.
I commend the Bill and hope that it receives a speedy and safe passage.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I am glad to be able to support the Bill, not only as an hon. Member of this House but also as a member of the Greater London Council, as I am proud to be.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David


James) praise the GLC and its colleagues in promoting the Bill for the way the matter had been conducted before the Committee. As I have often said, this barrier is urgently needed.
I wish, first, to refer to the effects of the barrier on my constituency before commenting on the graver risks in central London. In East Twickenham, in my constituency, the GLC two years ago built flood walls as an interim emergency measure to save a considerable number of local residents who live on low-lying ground nearby, some in basements, from the risk of being drowned and also to prevent damage to houses in the area.
The cost of that work was only £60,000, which in my view was abundantly justified even if the work is required for only about eight years, until the main barrier is built. Of that sum about 80 per cent. was carried by the Exchequer and the remaining £12,000 went on the GLC rates, which meant that only between £300 and £500 fell on the ratepayers of the Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames.
Other parts of Twickenham still suffer from floods. I refer to those parts not covered by the walls, such as the Embankment and Riverside area of the constituency where still several times each winter roads can be blocked, houses cut off, cars damaged and gardens harmed. The Bill will stop the worst of these floods in six years' time.
The risks in central London are very much greater. I am advised that the risk of a flood over-topping the Victoria Embankment wall in any one year is one in 10 but that the risk of its being overtopped by water 1 ft. higher than the level of the walls is one in 30. If that were to happen, there would be a risk of London's Underground system being flooded.
The risk to life is uncertain. The last flood in which lives were lost came from a North Sea surge in 1953 when a hump of water of the type described by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North came down the North Sea and drowned 250 people at Mablethorpe and Skegness in Lincolnshire, and I imagine that was the incident to which the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) was referring when he spoke of heaping sandbags. In the same surge in 1953, 50 people were

drowned at Canvey Island in Essex. There were then no fatal effects in central London, where the last fatal accident from such a surge occurred in 1928, when 14 people were drowned. That led to the raising of the present walls to the level at which most of them now stand.
The risk of such a surge coming up the Thames is increasing every year because London is sinking relative to the level of the sea and also because of the channels that are made in the Thames Estuary by dredgers facilitating supertankers coming up the estuary, helping surges to flow upstream. It is absolutely right that the Bill should go ahead at full speed.
8.30 p.m.
It is pertinent to refer to the report four years ago of Professor Bondi, who was then Professor of Mathematics at the University of London. He was commissioned by the last Government in 1966 to write a report on the risks of flooding in central London. The gist of his report was that there was an unacceptable risk, increasing year by year, of a major flood catastrophe. He reported that the damage would be so severe in human and economic terms that action was imperative. He assessed the economic costs as being of the order of £1,000 million. That was presumably at 1966 prices, so it is now perhaps one-third as much again.
Professor Bondi said that if the London Underground were flooded it would probably be a period of six to eight months before it could be restored to action again. He described this as being a
knock-out blow to the nerve centre of the country.

Mr. James Well beloved: In the hon. Gentleman's study of the Bondi Report, did he note that section which recommended that, because of the grave danger to London's Underground, a trial evacuation should be carried out to test the defences of the Underground? That recommendation has never been put into effect. Therefore, are not the present Government and their predecessors responsible for having taken a risk with the population of London who use the Underground?

Mr. Jessel: I did read that part of Professor Bondi's report, although not


recently. I recall that there was some connected mention of warning systems I imagine that such an evacuation of the Underground has been thought unnecessary because the warning system would operate many hours ahead. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North said that these flood surges could be detected as far north as Wick and this would make it possible for many hours of warning of any risk to be available to the London Underground.
That means the risk to human life in the Underground would be virtually removed, but the risk of the Underground getting flooded would not be removed. Therefore, the damage to the Underground would be economic rather than danger to life. The damage that would be suffered economically from the closure of the Underground from six to eight months would be great. A large proportion of people who work in greater London depend on the Underground to get to work. Our road system could not cope with all the traffic, and the efficiency of business, Government, local government and all commercial and manufacturing institutions would be gravely reduced. That would cause economic harm not only to people based in greater London but to the country as a whole. This would happen in any country if its capital were throttled in any way.

Mr. J. T. Price: In case this debate causes unnecessary alarm and despondency if it is reported in the Press, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, although I sat on the Committee for several weeks and listened to the technical experts discussing the grave risk of the flooding of the Underground, there are heavily armoured bulkhead gates to protect the Underground system against flooding providing that proper warning is given from the Wick station in the north of Scotland. We can shut off large sections of the Underground with powerful steel gates that have been erected for that purpose. That should be known for the comfort of people who ride on the Underground.

Mr. Jessel: I imagine that London Transport has improved the bulkheads since the writing of the Bondi Report. However, a certain amount of alarm and despondency should be created. I have here a letter from Lord Bowden, Principal of the Manchester Institute of

Science and Technology, which appeared in The Times about 18 months ago. He said:
The matter is so grave that the public should be fully informed.
It is necessary that the public should appreciate the dangers arising in London from the flood risk so that they will more easily accept the decision of the Government, the Greater London Council and the other authorities to spend such a large sum as £75 million on flood prevention. Unless a certain amount of alarm and despondency is aroused it will be difficult to get the public to accept expenditure of so large a sum.

Mr. David James: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), my understanding is that the heavy gates to protect the Underground system were installed during the war to prevent the Underground system being breached by bombs falling in the Thames. If I am right what is there to prevent all the water going down the station beyond New Palace Yard after a surge of the type we are discussing? There are no measures to prevent it going down the staircase.

Mr. Jessel: That point seems to be valid. It would apply also to Temple station and to several other stations not far from the river. The peril is so great to people in central London that anyone who attempted to delay this project, even for only one winter season, would carry a very heavy responsibility.
The hon. Member for Acton said that he will not obstruct the Bill or delay the project but that he would like to see it improved. I again quote from Lord Bowden's letter to The Times of 18 months ago:
I doubt if any impending disaster has been so completely studied, or if so much thought over a period of 17 years has ever led to so little action. I suspect that far too much time has been spent in trying to decide on the best possible solution to the problem. I believe it to be a profound mistake to try to find the best solution…The best may never be found and the second best may come too late to save us.
I entirely support what Lord Bowden said; and for goodness sake let us get on with it.

Mr. Spearing: I wish to make it quite clear that I do not wish to stop the Bill at this stage. I have not said that we


should find a better solution and take longer about it. What I have said is that in the course of arriving at this solution certain obvious questions which should have been asked were not asked, particularly about half-tide working, and that the recommendations, the investigations and the constitutional proceedures between various bodies were not as they should have been. I should not like the hon. Gentleman to think that I wish to delay the Bill or the project. I say simply that what should have been done has not been done.

Mr. Jessel: I remember the question of a lock being discussed several times in committees of the Greater London Council. I was not a member of the relevant committee, but I sat in on it sometimes. I believe that the case for a lock has not been demonstrated. From a shipping point of view when the barriers are down, which is about 99½ per cent. of the time, there is no need for a lock anyway, because the ships can just go through where the barrier is. Therefore, there is no need for a lock from a shipping point of view. It is purely a recreational and amenity concept.
The recreational aspect of the Thames can, perhaps, be divided into two parts. One is floating about on it and the other is looking at it. People seem to manage to float about on it successfuly now, although the water level rises and falls. As to looking at the Thames, it is all very well to hope that it will look nice but, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) said, there are some people who like to look at the mudflats. My hon. Friend conjured up a picture of seagulls strutting about amid the flotsam and jetsam and said that someone had painted a good picture of the mudflats. I do not dispute this view, but I rather prefer to see the river looking full of water, as it is in my constituency because of the half lock at Richmond which keeps the water in the river upstream from Richmond to where the tidal part ends at Teddington.
I cannot see that the case for a half lock is so compelling as to justify the expenditure of well over £4 million on it. Further, the port is gradually moving downstream. The docks closer to the centre of London are closing. In 20,

30 or 40 years' time they will nearly all be downstream from Silvertown and then the time may be right to consider spending £4 million to £10 million on a lock to keep the river looking nice and full.
There are so many compelling social needs in housing, health and education that I cannot believe that a predilection for looking at the river when it is nice and full of water justifies spending £4 million to £10 million on it, when the Central Electricity Generating Board, the Port of London Authority and so many other bodies concerned see so many objections to it.
I support the Bill as it stands. I hope that it will go through Parliament lickety-spit without further delay.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Mills): Perhaps I may intervene in the debate at this juncture to put the Government's point of view, which might be helpful. Before I do so, I congratulate the Committee on the way that it dealt with these matters. I have tried to do my homework over the weekend and have read much of what went on, looking at the brochure and so on, and I imagine that it was one of the most interesting Committees.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) on the way he has conducted his affairs. Even though there are times when one feels that one never wants to get on to a Committee, from all that I have read and all that I have heard in the debate I feel that it must have been a very interesting Committee; far more interesting, perhaps, than some of the usual Committees on which one has to sit.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) on his introduction and the way that he presented the case. So far we have had a very interesting debate.
The Government's views are simply these. The Government have always welcomed the Bill; and I am happy to say that there is nothing in it, as amended, to make it any less welcome.
The main purpose of the Bill is to assist the promoters in implementing the Thames Tidal Flood Protection Scheme. This project, which I have already implied


has the Government's full approval, is designed to protect from tidal flooding extensive areas along the estuarial Thames, including Central London—and, indeed, this House, which is something very important to us here. The Government have agreed, subject to the approval of Parliament, that the Greater London Council should construct a movable tidal exclusion barrier in the Thames, rather than a fixed barrier or an extensive and massive wall raised along the length of the river; that this barrier should be of the rising sector type rather than the more familiar drop gate variety; and that the structure should be sited at Silver-town rather than the several other sites which had been considered. To complement the barrier the Government have also agreed to the consequent improvement to the riverside defences downstream and, pending completion of the barrier, to interim works for the protection of Central London. This is most necessary when one remembers that this is the national capital and that London is part of our heritage. Therefore, it is absolutely vital that this should be protected.
The different phases of the scheme are still in the various stages of design, but the Government have shown their approval by agreeing to grant-aid the capital expenditure of the GLC and the Lee Conservancy at a rate of 65 per cent. and that of the Essex and Kent River Authorities at a rate of 80 per cent.

Mr. Peter Trew: On the question of the 80 per cent. grant to downstream authorities, my hon. Friend will know that the downstream flood defences have to be raised for two reasons, namely, the reflected wave effect of the barrier and changing tidal conditions. Does the 80 per cent. grant apply only to that part of the raising of flood defences attributable to the Thames flood barrier or does it also apply to the raising of flood defences for changing tidal conditions?

Mr. Mills: Frankly, I am not too sure about that. If my hon. Friend would allow me to continue, he would see that this is an estimate and that much more will probably have to be done and other matters will have to be examined. If I can finish my speech my hon. Friend may find this matter covered.
The capital cost of the works in connection with which powers are being

sought in the Bill is currently estimated at £58 million. Grant on costs of this order would amount to £40 million. The House will wish to know that the works covered by the Bill form only part of the scheme as a whole. Works already permissible under existing land drainage legislation are at present estimated to cost £67 million, grant on which would amount to £49 million. The whole scheme, therefore, is estimated to cost about £125 million, of which grant would be about £89 million. I emphasise, however, that these figures can be no more than very tentative estimates based on current costs, and this is important. As I have already said, the scheme is still in the design stage, and some aspects, particularly the downstream works, are only at the preliminary planning stage. Investigations at present being undertaken will allow needs to be assessed precisely, and this in turn will permit better estimates to be made. I am sure that the House will agree that we must look into these matters very carefully and be precise about them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Dr. Vaughan) mentioned the question of siltation—silting, as I call it. There is provision in the Bill for dredging by the GLC to counter any siltation due to the barrier. Alternatively, compensation can be paid. Both are covered by grant arrangements. I am told that it is a matter of dispute in the courts as to whether Woolwich Ferry is subject to siltation. Trials have been undertaken with a model on these problems and difficulties, but we need to carry out further investigations into cost.
These are very large sums of money. But the cost of the only alternative to a barrier—raising the existing defences, along almost the full length of the tidal Thames—would be even higher, not only in money but also in environmental terms. I feel certainthat all of us who love our capital city would prefer to see a barrier rather than river walls which deprived us of a view of our great river.

Mr. Well beloved: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the rising sector gate type barrier has been in operation in any other part of the world or whether the proposals in the Bill relate to a completely untried scheme which is merely an engineering dream?

Mr. Mills: These matters have been looked at very carefully. I am sure that the engineers have taken all the problems into account. This is such an important scheme of tremendous cost that they would not deal with these matters lightly. They believe that what is suggested is right and feasible, and we must rely on their judgment. After all, they are qualified engineers.
The House will know that there is an increasing danger of the Thames overflowing its banks and flooding substantial parts of inner London. We have had some serious warnings from my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North, who talked about "Doomwatch". After what he said, I think that he may well be asked to write a script for it. The cost of such a disaster as the Thames overflowing in terms of loss of life, damage to property, and disruption to the everyday life of the capital would be incalculable. The Government are satisfied that the powers sought in the Bill are necessary and that the cost of the works covered by the Bill is justified. I have no hesitation therefore in recommending to the House that the Committee's report be accepted.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) made a constructive and interesting speech. Obviously he has a firm grasp of the problem. The Government would not have been very happy with his Amendment because they believe that the primary purpose of the barrier must be to prevent flooding. I understand, however, that the Government would have no objection in principle to providing in later legislation for half-tide control if that were proved to be feasible.
This is a very important Bill, and I hope that the House will welcome it, because the task is urgent. I commend the Bill to the House.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Peter Trew: I would like to say a little more about the downstream flood defences to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary referred. I accept entirely the great risk to which London is exposed and the absolute necessity for getting on with the Thames flood barrier as quickly as possible. The Government and the Greater London Council are to be congratulated

on the speed at which they are bringing this great and imaginative scheme to fruition. But as my hon. Friend has already told us there is a vast amount of work to be done downstream. Provisional estimates show that while the flood barrier itself will cost £39 million, the downstream flood defences will cost £77 million.
The raising of the flood defences is needed for two reasons. The first is the reflected wave from the barrier which is effective for about 20 miles downstream. The second is that this corner of England is sinking and tidal conditions are changing. The combined result is that for 20 miles downstream on either bank the flood defences will have to be raised by between 3 ft. and 6 ft. In spite of many assurances from the Government and the drainage authorities there is still concern in downstream areas about the time it will take to complete the work. The concern arises because of the complexity of the task. The raising of the flood defences to the extent necessary is in itself an enormous task of civil engineering. It is complicated on the Essex side because of the many creeks and islands. On the Kent side, while the coastline is more straightforward, a great deal of structural work is required. On both sides the question is raised of the capacity of the subsoil to take flood defences. Therefore, in the purely technical sense it is a task of great complexity.
It is also complex from the administrative and the financial points of view. Administratively it is complex because about 1,000 frontages, each under different ownership, some owned by local authorities but most owned by private individuals, are involved. Some of these privately-owned frontages are at the moment unprotected by the river authorities. In a Written Answer on 17th May last my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary told me that there were 70 such privately-owned frontages on the Kent side. I would like to know what powers the river authorities have to compel the owners of these privately-owned frontages to raise their defences. If they have no such powers and if the owners cannot be persuaded to raise their frontages there is a great risk that the flood defences will be breached. There may be various reasons why the owners may not be amenable to raising their


frontages. The erection of flood defences in certain positions might interfere with their businesses, or they might find the cost prohibitive, even the comparatively small proportion of the cost that they would have to contribute. This problem is one about which I would like an answer.
Even in the case of the private frontages which are protected by the river authorities the question arises of what powers the authorities possess to enter upon those frontages and to carry out further works. There are also the financial implications and the negotiations that will stem from them. When I intervened while my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking I raised the question of the rate of grant that was applicable to the raising of flood defences. It is generally known and accepted that there is an 80 per cent. grant attributable to the raising of the walls within the reflected wave area.
A considerable proportion of the work, however, is due to changes in tidal conditions. I believe that this will attract only the normal rate of grant aid applicable to river authority work. If this is so, I envisage long and protracted negotiations on the exact rate of grant applicable to a given stretch of flood wall. If a lower rate of grant is applicable to the normal flood defences and a higher rate of grant is applicable to that proportion which can be attributed to the Thames flood barrier, the owner will do his best to try to persuade whoever is paying out the money that most of the work is due to the Thames flood barrier. This possibly will increase delays in starting work and getting the flood defences built.
I can think of one example where there is considerable scope for argument. I refer to the situation in Dartford Creek on one of the boundaries of my constituency. Half of Dartford Creek is in the greater London area where the rate of grant is 65 per cent.; the other half of the creek is in the Kent River Authority area where the rate of grant is 80 per cent. I understand that this applies only to work necessary in terms of the reflected wave effect of the barrier, and not to work due to changing tidal conditions. It is proposed to build in the creek a mini-barrier costing £2¼ million,

but before this can be built the question of how much grant is payable in respect of which part of the mini-barrier has to be resolved. There are understandable fears in these areas that this will greatly delay the start of the work.
I have said that assurances have been given and that the downstream areas will not be unprotected.

Mr. Tugendhat: My hon. Friend might like to know that I have managed to obtain some information on the points which were concerning him. The downstream authorities do not have powers to compel, but they can undertake the work themselves. It is envisaged that, in circumstances in which the riparian owners will be the people most immediately threatened, co-operation will be the order of the day in most cases. On the question of grant it would be helpful to have a little more time to deal with this problem, but for the normal river defences the grant will be 80 per cent. If my hon. Friend has any more detailed queries, they can be taken up with the sponsors of the Bill.

Mr. Trew: I am grateful for that information. The point which I made earlier when suggesting that the matter still has to be resolved and is one of great complexity which could involve protracted negotiations is still valid. This is one reason why there is still considerable concern in downstream areas on the question of whether the flood defences will be completed before the Thames flood barrier is in operation.
I tabled a Question on this subject on 17th May, and my hon. Friend replied in a Written Answer to the effect that the downstream defences for those areas of comparable importance to London and those areas where there is appreciable risk of loss of life or damage to property would be completed by the time the barrier was in operation. He said that repeated assurances had been given to this effect. That is true, but my hon. Friend would agree that it is fair to say that as time has passed those assurances have tended to become increasingly qualified. Indeed my hon. Friend has qualified them by saying that they would apply to areas of comparable risk to London and areas with a high risk to life and property.
What people in the downstream areas want to know is who is to be the arbiter of which areas are at risk and must be protected, and which areas are not at risk and can be left unprotected. When are we to know these matters? All those who live in the downstream areas are entitled to know in which category they are to be placed. I do not expect an answer now, but it is right that I should voice these fears so that we may have answers to them as soon as possible.
I conclude by saying that I accept it is absolutely imperative for the Thames flood barrier to be built as quickly as possible, but we in the downstream areas have legitimate fears and look forward to hearing answers to these fears as soon as possible.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I make no apology for having been jointly responsible with my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) for the Motion which has led to this debate. It would have been outrageous if a Bill containing proposals of this magnitude and importance for our capital city had slipped through Parliament without a debate.
The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) reminded the House of the enormous risk which now prevails in London from the threat of a Thames flood. I come from the constituency of Erith and Crayford in the London Borough of Bexley, which has a flood plain that was engulfed in the 1953 flood because of a breach in the river wall. A wall of water several feet high swept across the Erith marshes flooding up to Belvedere railway station. So I share their views of the danger involved.
One of my complaints is that the very land engulfed in 1953, the Erith marshes, is now land upon which the Greater London Council's dream town of Thames mead is being built. It was originally conceived to hold 60,000 people, but I understand that this has been reduced to about 45,000. All of these people are being put upon land known to be subject to flood risk.
When the proposals for a Thames flood barrier were first being mooted, it was suggested that the best site would be

at the edge of the GLC's area at a site called Crayfordness. At a public inquiry held by the Minister of Housing and Local Government in 1967 into the Thamesmead proposals, the GLC gave solemn evidence to the inspector, and through him to the Minister, that in its view the best site for a Thames flood barrier would be downstream from Thamesmead. It is one of my complaints that that promise to ensure that the people being put upon this flood plain would have the maximum possible protection that a barrier could give has been betrayed by the GLC.
I hasten to add that this does not mean that it is my intention now or at any other stage of the progress of the Bill to hold it up or in any way prevent its passage into law, because I share the view that, despite all the disappointments and despite the sense of betrayal rightly held in that area, it is now essential that the project should go ahead because of the dangers to London as a whole.
The hon. Member for Twickenham dealt with the situation in respect of the London Underground. He referred to Professor Herman Bondi's report. This was one of several reports but a most important one, and it contained a clear evaluation of the danger that exists to the London Underground system and the very grave loss of life that could take place if there were a breach in the river wall. As we meet here in Parliament tonight, the river wall has been raised at many parts of the embankment, certainly at the Houses of Parliament and other places, and the work is also progressing in my constituency.
But if, by some unforeseen circumstance, before the barrier is erected the river wall should be breached—and this is not beyond the bounds of possibility—we could have a flood of London's Underground system. It is my view that my own Government when in office failed in their responsibility to give effect to Professor Bondi's recommendation for a trial evacuation in working circumstances on the Underground. I really believe that, faced with this debate this evening, the Parliamentary Secretary has a responsibility to reconsider Bondi's recommendation and to carry out that trial evacuation, because it would be a tragedy if a breach occurred and the Underground were flooded and if loss of life should


occur because of the inadequacies of the emergency arrangements.

Mr. Peter Mills: I have been listening with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, but surely, to reassure people, he will agree that there is an adequate warning system which could be put into operation, so that the situation is not quite as serious as he suggests? I think that ought to be said.

Mr. Well beloved: I do not wish to be alarmist, but I believe the situation to be so grave that we have in this debate a duty to spell out the risk, without wishing to be unnecessarily alarmist. When the hon. Gentleman says that there is a warning system, he is correct, and it is a much improved warning system. I accept that, and the public to that degree can be reassured, but I say again that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that in a period of high surge, when warning has gone out and the Underground authorities have to put across the entrances to the Underground the planks of wood, the baulks of timber, which are the first defences to stop water going down into the Underground, there could still be, till the barrier is in position, a breach of the river wall, an overtopping of the river wall, and that it could engulf the Underground, because the water could pass over the bulkheads, which are not all in position, and the provisions have not been properly tried on the Underground.
Even so, with the bulkheads in position, the Underground has to be evacuated. I am satisfied that the London Underground authorities have effective contingency plans ready to put into operation, but Professor Bondi was also aware of those contingency plans, and yet, despite that, he believed, on his evaluation, that there should be a trial evacuation. I share his view, and I charge the Parliamentary Secretary to review the situation and to take a decision to carry out that recommendation by Professor Bondi. I leave that subject at that.
The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) has rendered a service to downstream authorities by bringing with such clarity to the House this evening the problems which confront them not only on the basis of the reflective wave but also in normal river flood protection. My

constituency is faced with problems similar to those which hon. Members from the Kent area have. Not only my local authority, but also many of the frontages to the river are concerned about the cost of the scheme and how it is to be applied.
It is not only a question of the percentage which the Government rightly should bear—and that percentage should be as high as it is possible to squeeze from the Treasury; but it is also a question of straight compensation for operators on the river who are disturbed in their normal occupations in carrying out their industry or commerce while banks are being raised and strengthened.
There are questions about cranes which at the moment are able to lift goods from barges on to land by having to go over walls of only relatively small height. If another three or six feet is put on it may be that new cranes will have to be installed, new ramps may have to be built. All sorts of things will have to be done to enable these Thames companies to survive. As far as I am aware from advice given to me, there is still grave doubt and serious uncertainty about the type of compensation to be paid for loss of operational ability.

Mr. J. T. Price: Before that argument is followed any further perhaps I might be allowed to remind my hon. Friend that all the petitions orginally lodged by the frontagers, the commercial operators who have wharfages and river frontages, were disposed of by negotiation during Committee stage. I have heard nothing to support the contention being advanced that there is grave doubt about this. The GLC and those responsible for the promotion of the Bill have given ample assurance to those petitioners, and it is not right to say that there is still grave doubt.

Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend had the privilege of serving on that Committee and is familiar with its proceedings. He may take it from me that the general public do not share his familiarity with the details of the Bill. This is why we should have this kind of debate so that the promoters, the Government and my hon. Friend can spell out to a wider audience what went on in the relative calm—I will not say secrecy, because it was not a secret Committee—of that Committee.
I am sure that if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend may be able to enlighten my constituents about the true facts. At present there is this apprehension in my area, and it is my responsibility to voice it. The Government or the promoters have a duty to spell out in more detail the proposals for compensation and not simply confine their remarks to the proposals dealing with the owners of industry on the river banks.
There is a chance that a considerable number of jobs belonging to ordinary decent Londoners may be lost while the raising of the banks is carried out. Those citizens of London are also entitled to compensation for loss of employment while this work is taking place. The GLC and the Government have a responsibility to finance that compensation. I hope that we will hear more of this. Although I am anxious to see a speedy passage for this Bill, the House will understand that we cannot give it a speedy passage if some of these vital matters are left unanswered.
9.15 p.m.
I turn to the question of silting. The position below the barrier could be serious. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to Woolwich Reach. Right down to Erith Reach and the Rands the silting pattern could be disturbed. There is serious worry about the effect on the riverfront users of the changes in the régime of the river that will result from the construction of the barrier. Although this may have been covered in Committee, it should be spelled out to a wider audience this evening. It is no good relying upon what took place in the quietness of the Committee. These vital matters need to be dealt with publicly on the Floor of the House so that they are more readily available to the population.
I intervened in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech to ask him about the rising sector type of barrier and whether he could give an illustration of anywhere in the world where such a scheme is in operation. I am worried that there may be difficulties when the thing is complete. When we have spent this vast amount of money what real guarantees exist that the Thames flood barrier will operate as it is designed to operate and as it is hoped it will operate? It is a new and

untried design. We need a little more assurance about its certainty of operation.
I have voiced some of the fears and worries of the people I represent. I hope that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) will have an opportunity of saying a few words before the debate ends to cover the points I have raised. The passage of the Bill can only be expedited if there is the fullest public disclosure of all the facts.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: It is not often that we have such an interesting debate considering large engineering works which, as it were, alter the face of Nature. A debate of this kind is a great deal more profitable than the picking out of one another's eyes that we so often indulge in in this Chamber.
As regards the risk, some hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to want us to blow up our lifebelts right away. However, I have seen the Operations Room in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with its clicking machines giving warning of likely floods, and I know that there is a projected siren warning scheme. However, this should be made more widely known. Otherwise, if a siren should blow one sunny afternoon, the public will go about their business imagining that a television company is making yet another film of the Battle of Britain. If this warning system exists, its existence should be made more widely known than it is at present.
The more significant point that I wish to raise before giving my support to the Bill is a matter for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. He indicated that the Government had a benevolent attitude to this. However, the important question is whether we are taking a big enough bite at the cherry.
Arguments have been put forward in favour of a Thames dam, for a vast reclaimed area below the dam and for a canal to the heart of London. We need a new deep water port. We need a huge new London airport complex. We need vast new areas of land for industrial and housing development. On the other side of the North Sea the Dutch are increasing the area of their country enormously by means of such schemes. It has been suggested that we could reclaim huge


areas in the Thames Estuary. Can my hon. Friend say whether these much bigger schemes have been considered and rejected. Can we be assured that we are thinking big enough and positively enough on this very important subject?

Mr. Tugendhat: With the permission of the House, I should like to reply. I cannot answer on behalf of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary the significant point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). However, I am sure that his point has been noted and the Ministry will provide an answer on a more direct basis.
I want to try to take up one or two of the points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In doing so, I hope that it is recognised that the sponsor of a Private Bill is at a disadvantage compared with a Miinster. A Minister has a direct link with his advisers and can be refreshed with information as and when required. Though my advisers on this occasion are present, they are in an inaccessible position. As a result, I think it is best to say that many of the points raised in the debate have been noted and hon. Members will be communicated with on a direct basis.
I take up first one of the points made by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing). He made a number of points which, though very strong, have in a sense been overtaken by the passage of time. He spoke about past events which he would not like to see happen again and which do not affect the Bill as it stands at present. However, the hon. Gentleman referred to navigation, and there is one point in that connection which it is worth making.
As envisaged, the barrier will be able to accommodate ships of up to 14,000 tons. Given the present developing pattern of the international merchant marine, this is a fairly significant figure. Today, as a result of the bulk transportation of oil and raw materials and the development of containerisation, we have very much larger ships than we have seen hitherto. In no circumstances would ships of 100,000, 200,000 and 300,000 tons have come up the Thames. However, in conjunction with them we

have a pattern of smaller ships plying the shorter and coastal routes. With the main London docks moving downstream towards the North Sea, I think that 14,000-ton ships will prove sufficient for our needs.
Another point raised concerned compensation. Hon. Members will be aware that in this extremely formidable looking Bill, there is specific reference to compensation in Clause 16, which goes into the matter in considerable detail.
I accept completely the point made by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well beloved) that what goes on in a Private Bill Committee and what is published in a Bill are not always readily accessible to those most affected. In fact one of the matters that we are learning about every aspect of government, both local and central, as it affects the lives of ordinary people is that even though authority may not have too much power, often it seems to have because people do not know what is going on and what is being planned. One sees this especially in planning applications. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's point is well taken and that the maximum publicity to these provisions ought to be given. I am certain that the GLC will bear it in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) also raised a point about payments and compensations. I attempted to meet one of his queries in an intervention when I pointed out that the river authorities would be able to get 80 per cent. grant. I should have added—this will help to put his mind at rest—that the GLC will be paying the full costof the effects of reflected wave. In other words, it is not the case that the GLC will be putting up a barrier, creating difficulties for others and leaving them to deal with those as best they can. Reflected wave which is a direct result of the barrier will be paid for by the GLC.

Mr. Trew: If I have understood my hon. Friend correctly, along the length of the wall there will be attracted grant worth 80 per cent. or 100 per cent. This is bound to make negotiations complicated because of the need to decide which portion qualifies for which rate of grant.

Mr. Tugendhat: The fact that complicated negotiations are likely to arise is indeed the case. I know that my hon. Friend would not wish me to attempt to commit the GLC or any other authority to any particular course of action at this stage. The point he makes about negotiations being complicated must receive serious consideration and I agree that work on that should be started as soon as possible.
These were some of the main points which emerged from the debate. It is right that we should have devoted so much time, even in a busy parliamentary programme, to a Bill which will cost the nation anything from £70 million to £100 million. These sums should not be spent lightly and without due consideration. As the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well beloved), like me, is playing truant from the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill, I know that he and I are at one on that.
I know too that the GLC will appreciate the kind words that have been said about it by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am glad that on this, the first occasion on which I have introduced a Bill for the GLC, the House has agreed with the necessity of getting this Measure forward as quickly as possible. I am sure that in return for the co-operation which hon. Members have shown and the many interesting and salient points they have raised, full consideration will be given to their observations.

Mr. Well beloved: Will the GLC be writing to each hon. Member answering the various points that have been raised so that we may be in a position to put a complete answer to our constituents?

Mr. Tugendhat: Not only will the GLC be writing to the hon. Gentleman and others who have raised matters, but I am assured by my ministerial colleagues that the Government will do so as well. In other words, hon. Members can expect two letters on each point. With that assurance I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) wish to move his Amendment?

Mr. Spearing: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (CONTROL OF EXPLOSIVES)

9.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move,
That the Explosives (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 730), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.
This is the second Order in Council relating to Northern Ireland to come before the House and, like its predecessor, it falls into the urgent category and has been dealt with under the special provision made in paragraph 4(1) of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act. The order was made on 11th May.
The purpose of this order is to prevent the use by terrorists in Northern Ireland of certain substances which, while not explosives in the usual sense of the word, can be used effectively in the causing of explosions. About 19,000-lbs. of explosive material has been used so far this year by terrorist organisations, of which about two-thirds consisted of either ammonium nitrate or sodium chlorate. These substances are increasingly used in lieu of, or in combination with, gelignite, and it is possible that other substances will also be introduced when a supply of these is denied to the terrorists.
Section 3 of the Explosives Act (Northern Ireland), 1970, enables regulations to be made controlling the manufacture, sale, acquisition, transfer, storing, transportation, handling, use or disposal of explosives. The definition of explosives is that set out in the Explosives Act, 1875, and includes any substance
used or manufactured with a view to produce a practical effect by explosion".
Ammonium nitrate is used very largely as a fertilizer and sodium chlorate as a weed-killer; neither is manufactured with a view to its use primarily as an explosive. It is, therefore, necessary to extend


the definition of explosive for the purpose of the 1970 Act.
The order does this by adding the words:
any substance (including any liquid article or thing) which is capable of being used whether by itself or in combination with anything else, as an explosive and which appears to the Minister of Home Affairs likely to be so used for unlawful purposes".
Regulations have already been made under the order for the control of ammonium nitrate and sodium chlorate, and these came into effect as from 1st June, 1972. The regulations ban from that date the manufacture, sale, purchase or acquisition of either substance as defined except under a licence issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. But since there are stocks of the two substances already in the hands of farmers and other purchasers it is considered reasonable to allow time for these stocks to be used or withdrawn.
Accordingly, after 30th June of this year it will be an offence for any person to have in his possession or under his control, or to use, the substances mentioned. I should perhaps make it clear that the ban applies not only to ammonium nitrate but also to mixtures containing more than 79 per cent. ammonium nitrate, since mixtures above this concentration can also be readily used as explosives.
As I have said, the substances covered by the regulations made under the order are ammonium nitrate and sodium chlorate only, but it is possible that other substances will be used for unlawful purposes as an alternative to these. If this should prove to be the case, then we shall have to consider bringing these substances also under control by way of further regulations.
Before the regulations were made, full consultation took place with the Northern Ireland Ministry of Agriculture and the various trade interests involved. As a result of these consultations I am satisfied that suitable alternatives are available to legitimate users and that at most inconvenience rather than hardship will result from the control of these substances.
I should be happy to go into much more detail but the House may find it convenient if I halt at this point so that more time is available for debate. Per-

haps I might later on, with the permission of the House, answer as fully as possible the questions which are raised.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We on this side welcome the order. I have no doubt that the reason for the small attendance is that there is general acceptance of the arguments put forward two weeks ago by the Government when they told the House that this was their intention. As I said then, one wonders why such a Measure was not introduced before. It is our view that it fits the procedure under the Northern Ireland legislation of a few weeks ago. There is an aspect of emergency, and for this matter anyway we think that it is appropriate that it should be done in this way.
Bombing is an easy way of conducting guerrilla warfare particularly in circumstances where society is not controlled to a degree where all life stops and the Services have complete control of what is going on. It would be far more difficult for those who indulge in guerrilla warfare with explosives if they were involved in real civil war. They would then find that the practice which they have followed in guerrilla warfare of this type would not stand them in very good stead when engaged in a different form of warfare.
It also is counter-productive, as witness those, whether Protestant or Catholic, who have been blown up. The letters which I received from people now legless and armless make me realise that for decades ahead the hatred will continue, and the problem of bringing peace to Northern Ireland is not helped by those who believe in getting their way with this sort of warfare
The Minister has explained that the powers in the orders are extended to the substances which he has named but which are not in themselves explosives. I should be grateful if he would explain a little more how this power will operate. The parent Act contains the phrase
where it appears to be used for unlawful purposes".
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how the order will operate in practice for the farmer. Did I understand him to say that there was to be a complete ban on the use of these materials, or will they still be available? What I question is


whether it will not be possible for people to get these materials and use them in explosives. Perhaps the Minister will explain the situation for the benefit of those engaged in agriculture.
If there is not overall control of these substances, as well as of explosives themselves, in this country, will it not be relatively easy to get these materials into the North of Ireland? If there is no reciprocal action by the Government in the South of Ireland, will it not be easy to get these substances into the North from the South? This is something which ought to be discussed by the Government with the Government of Eire. I sometimes become perturbed at the thought that explosives, gelignite and now these substances can be taken into the North of Ireland from this country. Is there sufficient control over explosives this side of the water?
Now that we have direct responsibility for the legislation of Northern Ireland, two other matters become relevant. In this country it is the Explosives Act, 1875, which gives the Home Office control over explosives. I notice that there is an Explosives Act (Northern Ireland), 1970. Why is it thought appropriate, other than perhaps for technical reasons, to have a different Act applying to Northern Ireland? Would it not be possible to say that the Explosives Act which applies this side of the water shall now apply in Northern Ireland and to make any necessary Amendments to that Measure?
I have looked carefully at the Schedule to the Northern Ireland Act of 1970. There are penalties in that Act which cover a wide variety of actions. What is the penalty for people who break the law as amended by the order with which we are dealing?
Given the nature of explosives in general, and bearing in mind the vast amount of explosives used in Northern Ireland over the last year—the Minister mentioned a figure of 19,000 lb.—it is likely that this order will have a very small effect. But whatever effect it has, the order has the support of this side of the House. Anything that can deal with the bombing that takes place in Northern Ireland, not just because of the effect that it will have in the years to come but because of the effect that it is

having on people in the North of Ireland who want to talk peace, whether they are in the majority or the minority, is sufficient reason for this House doing all it can, if only marginally, to deal with the problem of explosions.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I also welcome the order, which has been made under the Explosives Act. It is to be noted that the order amends the Explosives Act as opposed to being made under the Special Powers Act, which could have been done. It is in line with the policy of the Unionist Government in Northern Ireland that orders and changes of this nature should be made by way of an amendment of the 1970 Act rather than under the civil authorities special powers legislation.
I particularly welcome the order because of the figures which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary quoted in introducing it. He stated that 19,000 lb. of explosives had already been used this year. That makes the last answer to Parliamentary Questions stand out when it was disclosed that some 6,000 lb. of explosives had been used in the six weeks between the beginning of April and the middle of May. That means that some 1,000 lb. of explosives were being used every week. That is a colossal amount of illegal explosives being used for illegal purposes. As the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said, anything which can cut down the amount of chemicals available to the public is to be welcomed. When one considers the awful death and injury rate in Northern Ireland, one sees that some 350 people have been killed in the last three years and over 5,000 have been admitted to hospital with serious injuries, many of them as a result of explosions caused by the Republican terrorists by the use of gelignite and, more recently, gelignite mixed with explosives made from these substances.
One feature of the order which concerns me is that there is no control over similar substances being used elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Will there be any control of substances such as those covered by the order to prevent them being brought into Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom or being used illegally elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
I should also like to know what action will be taken in respect of stocks which are still held by farmers and others on the vital date of 30th June. There are large stocks available to farmers in the ordinary course of their business. If chemicals such as sodium chlorate and ammonium nitrate are not to be used in future for farming purposes, what alternatives are available? What publicity is the Department giving to alternative chemicals to be used for farming purposes? I am told that there is a considerable difference in price between alternative commodities, such as nitro chalk, which is about £2 a ton more expensive than ammonium nitrate. What is to happen to Ulster's farmers if they are forced to use more expensive substitutes?
Farming is a competitive business, like any other business. Are any steps to be taken by the Government to compensate those who have to use more expensive substitutes for ordinary farming purposes in Northern Ireland?
Another point which arises from a study of the order is the responsibility for checking that the regulations will be observed. In view of the quantities of such substances used in a community such as that in Northern Ireland where a great deal of farming is carried on, the job of checking the use of these substances will be considerable. Whose task will it be, and what will be the cost of checking that these substances are used in accordance with the provisions of the order?
My hon. Friend said that two-thirds of the 19,000 lb. of explosive used this year was made up out of chemicals produced from those covered by the order. This is an alarming figure. We know the terrible toll which has resulted from the use of these substances. If the substances have been used for some time, why have not steps been taken sooner to control their use?
I once again welcome the order.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sure that no one will wish to oppose the order. Nevertheless, I feel that someone should say that it is a pathetic order and is unlikely to correspond with any of the hopes expressed in connection with it.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) referred to it under the heading of anything that can deal with the bombing. There are circumstances in which the means to do ill-deeds makes ill-deeds done, but that is not the case in Northern Ireland. It is not because of the availability of ammonium nitrate and sodium chlorate that dozens and hundreds of people are being killed and maimed by attack with explosives. We should be deluding ourselves if we thought that that would be sensibly affected by this attempt to cut off in Northern Ireland the supply of these ordinary substances.
Immediately, as soon as the order is put forward, questions are raised from both sides of the House—what about the rest of the United Kingdom; what about the rest of the island of Ireland? My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) asked: how are the large quantities which are in existence to be controlled? How are we to know when we have made the order that those who wish to get hold of these substances for malevolent purposes will not have the opportunity to do so?
The notion that we can combat the violence in Northern Ireland by rushing from one to another of the instruments which it uses and attempting to impede or cut off access to substances such as these is foredoomed. The reason why these and other substances are not used here where they are available, or elsewhere where they are available, for the purposes for which they are used in Northern Ireland is not the absence or presence of control. It goes back, as everything else goes back in Northern Ireland at present, to the fundamental cause—the fact that confidence has been lost that the union will be maintained and that, consequently, a premium is placed upon every action which can exploit the fear and doubt that the union will not be maintained. We should be deluding ourselves if we thought that any order of this kind could be a substitute in any way for political measures which will obliterate the hope which at present those who engage in violence have, that one way or another violence will be successful.
I thought that it would be wrong that the House should part with the order without at least someone pointing to the vanity of dealing with the minor or even


trivial intruments and shutting our eyes, as I feel that Her Majesty's Government still are doing, to the underlying causes and realities.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I regret to say that I came into the Chamber after my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State had begun speaking, but I wonder why this measure was not discussed with representatives of the Ulster farmers. Being the only Ulster Member present representing a farming constituency, I feel that it is right that the farmers' voice should be heard. Farmers understand the need for this measure and they support it. Indeed, I voice the wonder which has already been expressed as to why this measure was not introduced long ago, because this terrible devastation has been going on for years. I wonder whether the order will bring that terrible devastation, mutilation and death to an end.
As has been said, it will be possible to obtain these substances from this country and from the Republic of Eire. That is not surprising because already gelignite is coming across from the Free State into Northern Ireland and, as far as I can see, very little, if anything, has been done by the Eire authorities to stop it. I know—and it is the experience of many people in NorthernIreland—that it is possible for cars, even today, to cross the border without being stopped by the police, the military, or the customs. If people are crossing in vehicles and bringing gelignite across by this means, I wonder to what extent the measure will help in this situation, although I welcome anything that would save one human life and protect life and limb from all sorts of dangers and injuries.
There must be quite a number of farmers with large stocks of these substances. What compensation will be offered to them? I hope that enough compensation will be offered to enable them to buy a suitable alternative; and not only that, but also to compensate for the labour involved in handling a bulkier amount of fertilizer. The main substitute for ammonium nitrate is nitro chalk. It is more expensive because more is needed to provide the same nutrient value to the land; and this will cost about £2 more per ton

than the fertilizer which the farmer has been used to using.
What will happen if the order precipitates a rise in price of the alternative fertiliser? Can my hon. Friend give some assurance to the farmers of Northern Ireland that they will not be burdened with more costs, which would make their life more difficult than it is at present?

9.54 p.m.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: I shall not delay the House for very long. My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) made a slight mistake in saying that he was the only Ulster Member representing an agricultural constituency, and I know that he will apologise for that.

Mr. Kilfedder: I said that, because I was the only Ulster Member who had risen to speak. I did not know that my hon. Friend would speak.

Mr. Maginnis: As has been said, the order is coming rather late in the day. Most of us have known for a long time that these substances have been used in conjunction with gelignite in causing explosions in Northern Ireland. The main reason why sodium chlorate was used was that, when used in conjunction with gelignite, it was easy to start a fire with it.
I ask the Minister whether he has any plans to put advertisements in the local newspapers throughout Northern Ireland about these substances. Is he aware that practically every householder in the area in which I live and represent has supplies of sodium chlorate for weed killing? Farmers will have to pay a little extra to substitute the other fertiliser known as ammonium nitrate. Many chemists' shops have large stocks of sodium chlorate and they advertise them in the local Press every week for use as weed killers. The order states that after a certain date it will be illegal to have such stocks and one must notify them to the authorities. What penalties will be imposed if someone does not know about this and is found with these stocks?
The order will not have the slightest effect on the bombing campaign in Northern Ireland. It is like having a closing time for pubs: if a man wants a drink, he will get a drink whether or not the pubs are closed. If the bombers in Northern Ireland want to obtain these substances they will obtain


them whether or not the order is made. They will bring them in from this side of the water or across the border. To use an Irish expression, this is just painting the lily; it is only part of the campaign. I should like to see more security on the border and even at the airports and ports throughout the United Kingdom, so that these substances cannot be brought in. I should like a strict security check to be kept on these substances; otherwise the order will be meaningless.
I welcome this belated attempt to try to do something to stop the bombing campaign in Northern Ireland, and I hope that it will in part be successful.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: There is something unreal about a debate when reasonable men and women in a quiet Chamber at ten o'clock at night can talk about ways of trying to limit means by which ordinary men and women across the water blow each other to pieces. I do not think that the Government or the Opposition believe that this order is a way of stopping the reason for the bombings. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) does not believe that this is the way to solve the problem in Northern Ireland. It is simply a way by which it may be possible to deny some of the means of those who are misusing power and authority and lawful substances for a nightmarish purpose.
The urgent matter is not an increase in the price of fertiliser. The problem is not how the chemist will dispose of his surplus stocks. I have information fairly regularly from across the water, so I am not wholly ignorant of events there. Those who are bombing unfortunate working people are using much more sophisticated methods than agricultural chemicals.
Like others, I should like to know what other proposals there are outside the order for controlling the acquisition of explosives in this country. Although these substances are not so much used now in the coal mines because of mechanical cutting, I know from my background in the mines that it was not difficult for miners to bring out of the mines every day a few sticks of powder in their pockets. There was no difficulty in obtaining the supplies which could easily get across the water and be used for wrong purposes.
I ask the Under-Secretary to have a word with the National Coal Board, because in the past a great deal of trust has been placed in the miners that they should use powder correctly. I misused it at times in the old days when we had long wall working and we bored holes in the coal face. The easiest way to get rid of one's stint of coal was to use double the amount of powder and blow it into someone else's stint.
But explosives are counted by the tin and as far as I know there now is no count of the number of sticks of "jelly" which go into a tin or of the number of sticks used. This is a fairly easy source for anyone who wishes to misuse that trust. It might serve some small purpose to have a word with the NCB and those who control mining and construction in this country about this aspect of the matter.
This is not an order which will solve the problem of Northern Ireland, and no one is intending that it should. But it is a little more important than the price of agricultural fertilisers or the way in which a chemist will dispose of his outdated stock. The order may do a little good and it will do no harm.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: I add my voice to those who have welcomed the Measure.
One of the difficulties is that these materials will be able to move across from the Republic as freely as one of my hon. Friends has said that explosives move at the moment. The difficulty, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary appreciates, is one of controlling the movement of any substance coming across from south of the border. The customs system does not work all that effectively because most of the customs posts close down at about 6 o'clock at night and the men go home. I understand that many of the principal roads are unguarded by the customs during the hours of darkness. I would like to hear what means will be used to try to control the passage of these materials from the south at many of these points. Would my hon. Friend perhaps give an assurance that representations will be made to the Government of the Republic that they should introduce similar legislation controlling the use of these materials?

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: It is almost universally agreed that the effect of the order, if passed, would be marginal. Such explosives as we have been discussing clearly will be obtainable from the South. They already exist in the no-go areas and they are so widely obtainable that it is almost true to say that we are being asked to pass a measure upon the ground that its effect will be incredibly small. That is no reason for opposing it. Of course, we support the order; I do not think we have heard anyone who is not willing to support it.
Time is running on and while we shall willingly support such measures as are being introduced tonight, we are rapidly approaching the point when Her Majesty's Government ought to present to us some more finite policy, some indication of an ultimate political solution, and I hope that may come, rather than many more orders like this one, which is welcome none the less.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. David Howell: I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for, in most cases, welcoming the order, although some rather damning reservations have been made on it. However, we believe that the order will play a part, albeit a small part, in the overall situation in reducing tension and bringing peace to the province of Ulster.
I turn to the points which were raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), particularly about the practical way in which the order will work. Perhaps it will be useful to explain in some detail the principles. As I said in opening the debate, for those who find it necessary to continue to use or handle large quantities of these chemical fertilisers and weed killers, a system of licensing is being brought into operation. Those who need to hold or use large quantities of these materials should, if they require a licence, contact the Ministry of Home Affairs. Notices to this effect have been inserted in a number of Northern Ireland daily and Sunday newspapers, farming journals, farming supplements and on news and television transmissions. As a result of that publicity 300 application forms have already been sent to inquirers and about 65 completed forms have been returned.
The process works in the following way. On receipt of an application form inquiries will be made into the bona fides of the person concerned and efforts will be made to see whether there are suitable alternatives. The police, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Forensic and Industrial Science are consulted and, provided that the Ministry is satisfied there is a need and there is unlikely to be any danger to the public, a licence will be issued. Wholesalers and retailers will be required to keep a register showing the receipt of sale of the substance concerned. There will be additional powers under part eight of the licence. It will state the licence number of the purchaser, together with his name and address and the quantity purchased, and other details will have to be entered. As regards receipt of the substance, the date of receipt together with the quantity and name and address of the supplier will be shown. Local inspectors will inspect registers from time to time. That is the system which will meet the needs of those who under this arrangement find that they have to continue to sell, handle or use very large quantities of these chemicals and who can find no alternative.
A number of hon. Members have raised questions about those who have to find alternatives and the cost involved in going over to alternatives. I shall try to answer them. If farmers find that they cannot use stocks of prohibited ammonium nitrate fertilisers or other materials by 30th June, they will be advised through the Press to get in touch with the Ministry of Home Affairs in good time. The Ministry will then consider issuing the farmer with a licence, or alternatively will buy the stocks from him. The purchase price will be related to the cost of buying alternatives and will take account of any change in subsidy rates.
Arrangements were made with the wholesale suppliers of sodium chlorate for the disposal to the trade in Great Britain and elsewhere of all existing stocks held in Northern Ireland. Suppliers will be recouped any loss they suffer as a result of resale. I hope that this meets the worry about compensation which was raised by a number of hon. Members.

Mr. Kilfedder: What about the handling of this material?

Mr. Howell: Handling is also included.
The hon. Member for Leeds, East and other hon. Members raised the obvious point about what can be done in terms of control in the Republic or in the United Kingdom. The present position in the United Kingdom is that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is looking into the question of control in the United Kingdom. The position is somewhat different this side of the water in Great Britain since the volume is far greater. The question of manufacture has to be taken into account since the main manufacturers are in this country and larger problems of scale are involved. But, as I say, the matter is at the stage where it is being discussed by my right hon. Friend.
As far as the Republic of Ireland is concerned, this is a matter for its internal legislation, and I understand that there are no controls there at present. The matter relates to the security situation, and on such matters the exchanges between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Republic are confidential. But I have noted the points made tonight.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South referred to the original Explosives Act, 1875, and to the Explosives Act (Northern Ireland), 1970, asking why we could not simply have amended the 1970 Act. The main difficulty is that the 1970 Act gives Ministers greater powers than the 1875 Act, so it would have been difficult to follow the line he suggested. That is why a separate order springing from the 1970 Act was necessary.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for informing the House that there are greater powers under the Explosives Act (Northern Ireland), 1970. It is likely that explosives are getting from this country over to Northern Ireland by devious routes. Would it not be appropriate for the Home Secretary to consider at least strengthening the Explosives Act, 1875, and any minor changes made in it so that there was greater control of explosives in this country?

Mr. Howell: No doubt this is a matter that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is looking at in considering the application of greater controls here.

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said and will see that it is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
The penalties for offences against the new regulations are contained in Section 3(4) of the 1970 Act—on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding £300 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) referred to the question of stocks. I think I have answered that in dealing with the question of licences to hold or attempting to turn in existing stocks and be adequately compensated. I have also mentioned the publicity which has gone on so far. We will naturally try to do more. We are getting a good response and we will push ahead with the publicity programme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East and a number of others asked why this order was not introduced sooner after the coming into force of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act. There were difficulties of timing The Act has been in force about 10 weeks. There is bound to be difficulty in bringing forward legislation of this kind in that one does not want to create a lot of instant criminals, as it were—people who find themselves overnight, in a way they never wished or intended, on the wrong side of the law. We felt it necessary to give some kind of time break.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said he thought the order was pathetic and a manifestation of vanity. I do not know whether it is fruitful for me to pursue these thoughts with him. They spring from the fact that he and I take fundamentally different views, both on what is going on in Ulster and on the analysis of the situation and the prospects for the future.

Mr. Powell: Hear, hear.

Mr. Howell: As my right hon. Friend says "Hear, hear", for once we find ourselves at some point of agreement, so I will diplomatically leave it there
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) raised again the question of the amounts of explosives which have been found and the measures taken to


find explosives on the border and elsewhere. This is a central part of the whole security operation. I would not like him to think that there have been no successes. There have been some very substantial catches indeed.
Only last week there was an enormous take of almost 600 lb. of sodium chlorate. All the time these catches are taking place on the border and near it.
I cannot at this moment go into details of how the security forces wish to operate this order. They do not necessarily take the view that at the border is the best place to catch explosives. My hon. Friend knows very well, I am sure, having visited the border, that it does not necessarily provide the ideal point at which to crack down on movements of explosives. It is not necessarily the kind of border where once one has guarded the main roads one has done all that is required. I am sure that my hon. Friend and others know very well that this is no more than a token guarding of the border because it is the hundreds of minor roads and minor footpaths which provide opportunity for movements across the border. So I take fully my hon. Friend's point about the need for very strong, continuous security operations to catch the movement of explosives.
In a sense, of course, this very order arises from a situation which reflects, in some ways at any rate, a change in the security situation. It arises from the fact that it has been necessary for terrorists

to use more chemicals; it has been found that they are less able to get gelignite, and the reason for that is that the control of movement, and on the sale and on the handling and on the smuggling of gelignite, has become very much tougher and is forcing them to use these chemicals, and creating a situation in which an order of this kind, although it may only appear a small order, and although it is only part of the overall programme, will, we believe, have some effect in improving the security situation, in reducing the chances that the terrorists can go out and continue their campaign of maiming and assassination. That is the purpose of bringing forward the order.
I am sorry that it should have been condemned by some as not being the final answer. Of course it is not the final answer. It is only a small part of the overall efforts by the Government to improve the situation in Ulster, but we believe that it is worth while bringing it forward; we believe it makes some small contribution, and it is, of course, by this collection of small contributions, rather than some magnificent and sweeping gesture, that a steady improvement in the situation can be effected and that steady progress towards a better future in Ulster can be achieved.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Explosives (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 730), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND FINANCE CORPORATION

10.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move,
That the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 731), a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.
The order which the House is now asked to approve has been laid under the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1972. Hon. Members will see that it provides for the establishment of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation and gives it powers and defines its functions.
This is a case where the Northern Ireland Parliament had substantially indicated its approval to corresponding Northern Ireland legislation and indeed the Bill had reached its Third Reading in the Northern Ireland Senate at the time when prorogation of that Parliament took place. The order closely parallels the Northern Ireland Bill in every respect save one, as I shall later indicate.
Hon. Members will recall that the decision to establish a Northern Ireland Finance Corporation followed the recommendation of the Joint Review Body on Economic and Social Development in Northern Ireland whose report was published last December. The Review Body found that the Northern Ireland economy had stood up surprisingly well to the combined effects of the general economic recession and the civil disturbances but that
The situation is likely to deteriorate in the absence of remedial measures".
It identified as particular problems the fact that liquidity was being sustained by the running down of stocks and deferment of capital expenditure and that, because of the trouble on the streets, the flow of new inward investment was sharply reduced.
To meet this situation the report recommended the setting up of a Finance Corporation with power to assist, by means of loans, guarantees or share participation, undertakings threatened with contraction or closure but with reasonably good prospects of solvency in the

longer term and with a useful contribution to make to the economic life of Northern Ireland. The order now before us closely reflects the detailed recommendations of the report, including the possibility of assisting in the sphere of new investment.
I believe there is a general acceptance of the proposition that one of the problems contributing to Northern Ireland's unrest has been the intolerably high rate of unemployment from which it has suffered for so long. In the past this has been to a large extent the result of the running down of traditional industries, and this difficulty continues. On top of this there come the severe problems arising directly from the violence. Firms which at other times would be in excellent shape now find themselves facing appalling liquidity problems. Orders that in other circumstances would have been forthcoming are postponed.
The solution to the problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland must lie in two directions. We must conserve the economic fabric in the present difficult circumstances. Combined with this, we must attempt to stimulate as much new investment as possible, both by the expansion of established concerns and by the attraction of new industry. The Finance Corporation will be equipped to help in both directions.
I do not propose to dwell at length on the detailed provisions of the order at this stage as I am sure hon. Members will wish to have the opportunity of raising a number of questions and of expressing their own views. I would, however, draw particular attention at the outset to Articles 4 and 9.
Article 4, which provides for the Corporation's functions, is the key provision. It enables the Corporation to provide assistance, in the three forms recommended by the Review Body, to undertakings threatened with contraction or closure and for the purpose of encouraging new investment both by firms already established in Northern Ireland and by new incoming concerns. The Corporation has no power to assist by means of grants; this will remain a function of the Northern Ireland Ministry of Commerce using the extensive and flexible powers it possesses under the Northern Ireland industries development legislation. In practice, the Corporation and the Ministry will


certainly operate in close collaboration in working out assistance schemes whether for the maintenance of existing concerns or the establishment of new ones. Indeed, the functions of the two will be complementary.
It will be seen from Article 8 that up to £50 million will be available to the Corporation for the provision of financial aid. It will be incumbent on the Corporation—and here I would expect its special financial expertise to come into play—to form a judgment on the value or potential value to the Northern Ireland economy of applicants for assistance and on their prospects of solvency
The Article also empowers the Corporation to examine the management and structure of companies receiving assistance. Here again I believe that the special qualifications of its members and executive staff will have a beneficial impact on the economic life of the country. The Review Body drew particular attention to the importance of capable management in industry and to the part the Corporation might play in this field.
I should like in coming to the composition of the Board to extend my own welcome to the strong group which is headed by Mr. Charles Villiers; it has already met in Belfast and is getting ahead with decisions about staffing in order to establish an executive of the highest quality.
I will go briefly through the Board as it stands now. There is Mr. Villiers, the chairman; Christopher Bland who is now managing director of Booz, Allen and Hamilton International; Mr. Arthur Brooke, permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Commerce, Northern Ireland; Mr. Brendan Harkin, member of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions; Sir David Holden, Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, Northern Ireland; Mr. Laurence Kelly, Director GKN International Trading (London) Ltd.; and Mr. Darwin Templeton, senior partner, Price Waterhouse and Co. (Northern Ireland).
The Corporation will be free to consider assistance over a wide range of undertakings. In practice most of its aid may go to manufacturing industry, which was the Joint Review Body's expectation.

Assistance to other areas where difficulties are being experienced, for example retailers and hotels, is also possible. It must be left to the Corporation to form its own judgments on deserving cases, provided they can satisfy the criteria laid down by the legislation. It will indeed be essential to its effectiveness that it should have a reasonable degree of autonomy in the consideration of how it is to use its powers.
I draw attention to Article 9 simply because this is the only part of the order to show a change of substance from the Bill considered at Stormont. The change lies in the fact that the order now provides for secondary audit by the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General whereas the Bill provided for commercial audit only. This reflects the unavoidable fact that there will be less chance for detailed debate on the Floor of the House here at Westminster than at Stormont. This must be recognised. It also reflects our belief in the need to make bodies of this kind appropriately accountable to Parliament.
It is right that I should let the House know that I have the assurance of the Corporation's chairman that it is the firm policy of both the Corporation and the Board to aid the Province as a whole without any question of favour to this group or that. This must be made clear. The aim is the restoration and improvement of the economic fabric of Northern Ireland—and that means applying its effort and support to all, without regard to differences of creed or geographical location.
I would ask the House to give this Measure its support.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We welcome this order from this side of the House and if there are very few of my hon. Friends present, particularly those who show a close interest in Ireland, it is because a delegation is visiting Northern Ireland today and tomorrow. We welcome the order because, while the question is not perhaps as simple as is sometimes thought, we agree with the Minister that the economic problem of Northern Ireland is one of the underlying reasons for the unrest in that part of the United Kingdom and particularly for the decline in the traditional industries.
I make this point also, having read through the original Bill, the order and the Cairncross Report, that while general elections are fought in this country, foolishly in my view, as if the economic argument is one between Karl Marx and Adam Smith, in practice this is not the case. Only today the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pointed out proudly, that the amount of money being made available to the private sector was far larger under the present Government than under the previous Administration.
The Northern Ireland Finance Corporation is not just a special case; it is part of the interventionist trend of modern Governments. It is similar in philosophy to the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation which it was one of the first acts of the present Government to end. Both Governments—no doubt with some disagreement among Members opposite—are committed to interventionist policies. The Minister has explained the one respectin which the order is different from the Bill which went through the Northern Ireland Parliament. He explained that that Bill achieved its Third Reading in the Senate and therefore it is appropriate that the procedure under which we debate these matters for one and a half hours should be used. But with future orders of this kind which are so sweeping in character, that procedure may not be appropriate.
I wish to make a few comments on paragraph 4 of the order. Is it a way of helping manufacturing concerns which have been bombed or is there another route by which such firms can obtain money? The Minister said that this matter had to be seen in the context of Northern Ireland and the effect of the bombings on trade. Is this a way of giving money to firms which have had their premises destroyed?
I ask, too, what is the criterion used to decide solvency. Taking into account article 4(1)(a), (b) and (c), what is the criterion that the Corporation will have to apply? In so far as there are to be equity holdings, is there the expertise among those responsible to this House, through the Minister, for the Corporation? I should ask this question if the Corporation were being set up on this side of the water as well. What is the aim of the Corporation when it lends money through equity holdings? Is it

profitability? Is its aim, like that of the joint stock public company, to maximise its profits? Will the money be given with that in mind? Harland and Wolff, for example, is a joint stock public company in which the Secretary of State holds 47½ per cent. of the equity capital on behalf of the Government. Would it be appropriate that money from the Corporation should be given to Harland and Wolff?
Article 4(2) deals with loans:
The Corporation may in exercising its functions under paragraph (1)…(b) make loans…
What is the criterion which the Corporation will bear in mind when it is lending money out of the £50 million that the Government are making available?
It is worth looking carefully at paragraph 4(5):
The Corporation shall have power to do anything which (a) after consultation, where it appears appropriate, with the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Corporation thinks desirable to promote and encourage the good management of any undertaking seeking or receiving assistance…
I go back to the beginning.
The Corporation shall have power to do anything…
That may be desirable, but it is putting great power in the hands of the Corporation.
Then I notice that the moneys for the Corporation are to come out of the Consolidated Fund. Perhaps it is not an admission that one ought to make, but I make it freely. The niceties of where money comes from when it is given to Ministries or to organisations such as this are not matters about which I am an expert. But does not it mean that because this money comes out of the Consolidated Fund and not through the Estimates, which is the normal way in which money is made available, there will be no chance of debating it on the Floor of the House? If not, I put the question the other way round: why is it done through the Consolidated Fund? I do not think that that was done with the various organisations set up under the previous Administration.
In any event, what parliamentary control shall we have over this organisation? Taking what I said a moment ago a little further, it would be naive to expect to have the right to ask parliamentary Questions about it, but what


rights shall we have in the House? Is there, at the least, to be an annual report to the House? I know that there is to be a financial report, but that is different. Will there be any justification of the uses to which the money is put? Shall we be told why money has been invested in Belfast, or Newry, or Strabane or Londonderry? Will there be any justification of the philosophy which would justify the spending of more money west of the Bann and may be under those circumstances playing down the profit motive which is implicit in the case of joint stock firms in which the State, through this organisation, will have equity holdings?
I notice that the order refers to the Comptroller and Auditor-General of Northern Ireland. Does this mean that the Public Accounts Committee of this House will have no rights to investigate what the Corporation will be doing with the £50 million which we are making available in the first instance? If what has happened in other areas is anything to go by, it will not be long before we are asked for a sum of money in addition to this provision of £50 million. That may be desirable, but my point is that there is a need for control by this House over such large sums of money.
Under the heading "Borrowing" on page 4 the order says:
The Corporation may, with the approval of the Ministry and the Ministry of Finance, borrow money
Can the Minister give us some idea of what the Government have in mind there? Given the background to the situation in Northern Ireland, and given the great problems there because of the disturbances, where will the Corporation be able to borrow money on the open market? What do the Government have in mind?
I should now like to put to the Minister one aspect of the economic development in the North of Ireland that is of value. One has only to read the utterances of people in both the majority and minority communities to know that there is a great division on the question of political unification, and nothing that has happened in the last few months has altered that. But during the last few months I have found surprising agreement between people in the North and

the South, and between people in the majority and minority communities, on economic co-operation between the North and South. Indeed, that is one of the things that I found remarkable when I first took a detailed interest in the affairs of the North during last year.
It is the aim of the Administration here to go into the EEC. There has been a referendum in the South of Ireland which has shown that the people agree with their Government on going into the EEC. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has left, but I suppose that even he would agree that there is an even chance that by later in the year both the United Kingdom and Eire will be in the Common Market, with a common regional policy.
I ask therefore why there is not more discussion, particularly over the setting up of this Corporation, about across-the-Border activities. When the Secretary of State announced this, I said that, in the minutes of evidence of the Expenditure Committee on Wednesday, 8th March, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) asked Sir Alec Cairncross a question concerning possible assistance for those firms engaged in across-the-Border economic co-operation, to which Sir Alec replied:
I think you have a point there. We had meant to say something about firms engaged in operations on both sides of the Border, and we would have liked to commend these for assistance, but somehow it got left out. That was in our minds.
There is a battery of incentives in the North based on the scheme in this country. In the South, there is the Industrial Development Authority, which gives 60 per cent. grants, and 40 per cent. of the recipients are United Kingdom firms. They also have the Industrial Credit Company Ltd., which is an investment bank, and another organisation, called Foir Teoranta, which helps firms in temporary difficulties. In these circumstances, when we are setting up this Corporation, should not more thought be given to encouraging joint economic activity, particularly in Londonderry, Strabane and Newry? This would be much more fruitful than discussion of constitutional changes.
Were it not for the fact that it has already gone through practically all its stages in Stormont, I would have to point out that there is not enough time


to debate an order as important as this. In general, we welcome it as an earnest of the Government's intention to help economic activity in Northern Ireland, which is of great importance.
Questions asked at this time of night are usually best answered later, but I hope that the Minister will set our minds at rest about accountability. We are setting up an organisation with £50 million, which will get involved with private industry in a way of which there is little experience in Government Departments, under any Administration. Accountability matters. Otherwise, we welcome the order.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: It is amazing that, once again, in a debate on an important order, the representatives of the Republican parties in Northern Ireland are not present. Perhaps this shows the interest which these hon. Members have in parliamentary democracy now that they have ceased to use this place as a platform for all sorts of wild allegations about Northern Ireland and democracy there.
I welcome the establishment of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation. This is a development that I have been advocating for a number of years. The Joint Review Body under Sir Alec Cairn-cross recommended it last December and it has been generally welcomed in Northern Ireland. The urgency of setting up the Corporation was stressed in the report, and it is a sad commentary on direct rule that its implementation has been delayed for about two and a half months. It is strange that it has taken all this time to bring the order before the House.
No one would disagree in principle with the proposals, but some of us may have certain reservations on a number of practical aspects.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My hon. Friend is quite mistaken in supposing that no one would disagree in principle with the proposals.

Mr. Kilfedder: I have fallen foul of my right hon. Friend by making that general statement. I note what he says. I agree with my right hon. Friend on so many other matters that perhaps I shall be forgiven for disagreeing with him on this point.
Over more than 20 years the Northern Ireland Ministry of Commerce has made great efforts to attract new investment and industry, particularly under Mr. Brian Faulkner, who established his dynamic reputation in that Ministry. Over 40,000 new jobs have been created and more than 115 new industries have been set up.
With the birth rate so high that it is proving almost a social disaster—I mention this because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary talked about the break-up of the old industries on which Ulster's industry was based in the 1920s and 1930s—the creation of new jobs has made much less impact on the numbers of unemployed than was hoped for. I do not remember a time when the Province had less than 7½ per cent. unemployed. We generally have 10 per cent. or more and, in addition, a high level of emigration to England or abroad.
Regional development in the United Kingdom as a whole is in the doldrums. Many of us believe that joining the Common Market will not make the position of the outlying areas such as Northern Ireland any easier. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure the House that the principle behind the Finance Corporation will not be in conflict with the European Economic Community's rules and regulations.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will also tell us what progress has been made in restructuring the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland to cope with the new industrial development work. If the public service is to give of its best in the fight to bring prosperity to Northern Ireland, it must be staffed by more men and women of ability and experience. I pay tribute to the present staff, which is too small in number and who have been putting up with tremendous difficulties.
For far too long the dead hand of the Ministry of Finance in Northern Ireland has squashed initiative from the Civil Service and the Departments. I am glad that the Finance Corporation will not be subject to control by the Ministry of Finance more than is absolutely necessary. Mr. Charles Villiers, the first chairman, would be well advised to clear the decks by having his tussle with the Ministry of Finance at the beginning. He should get the guidelines agreed well in advance,


otherwise he will face endless, irritating, penny pinching interference by the non-experts of the Treasury, who will want to poke their noses into everything that he and his directors on the board do. The Finance Corporation is too important a proposal for the prosperity of Ulster to be decimated by bureaucracy.
My hon. Friend said that a new section is added to the order—it has been added by the United Kingdom Government—making the Corporation accountable to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. This is a policy which was advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in Committee at Stormont and which was resisted by the Stormont Government on the grounds that the Corporation was an independent organisation.
The fear which I and many others have is that the bureaucratic Comptroller and Auditor-General procedure will blunt the speed of decisions, curb the flexibility of the Corporation's action and be wholly inappropriate. The Cairncross Report recommended only independent auditors. I should like to hear what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has to say about that.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Surely the auditors' inquiry is posthumous.

Mr. Kilfedder: Perhaps we could deal with that matter later. In saying that to my hon. Friend, I am not ignoring what he says, but I have to be brief and there are other matters I wish to mention.
I hope that Mr. Villiers will come to a sensible arrangement with the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The Corporation's financial assistance to industrial undertakings must not be subject to petty scrutiny. It is not in the best interests of the companies or the Corporation that its daily financial transactions should be questioned, because confidence and confidentiality are essential to success, and success is what we want. As the Corporation is to lend money to ailing companies and new companies coming to Northern Ireland, it must be free to act the part of a merchant adventurer. Mere financial speculation is ruled out by the criteria which the undertaking has to satisfy, but the Corporation should not be put off by the possibility that in one

or two cases it may not be successful. The gamble must be taken. It is a gamble worth taking. With financial assistance going to so many firms, there are bound to be some disappointments. That is a risk which the Corporation must be prepared to face.
The physical disadvantages of Northern Ireland and its geographical remoteness from the biggest markets must be overcome by greater efficiency, better management, cheaper production and more effective labour relations. The Finance Corporation will find plenty of management problems in Northern Ireland industry where its expert help will be invaluable and where extra money at the right time can make all the difference. Already much has been done and is being done by the industry training boards, the various ministries and the trade unions.
A sum of £50 million has been made available to the Finance Corporation. Can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary say whether the £2½ million for the International Computers Limited factory at Castlereagh in my constituency is to come under that sum or is in addition to it? The successors to ICL will need further assistance and financial help if they are to diversify and to keep the present work force of 1,700 men fully employed. The Government now have a 62.5 per cent. interest in the ICL factory at Castlereagh. What will be the total cost of this Government action? Will the new firm be handled by the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation? Does not the sum envisaged for ICL at Castlereagh suggest that £50 million may not be sufficient to bring prosperity and full employment to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: This illustrates one of the points that, whether in this country or in Northern Ireland, we must clear up. If ICL already has equity capital owned by the Department of Trade and Industry and gets money funnelled into it probably on top of that now that there is this Corporation in Northern Ireland, is there liaison between the DTI and the Northern Ireland Department? If the short answer is "Yes", what form does it take? Here is a firm that, not only in a regional development way, can get money from two sources.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am glad to hear that the Government have appointed a trade


unionist to the board. This is something which the Stormont Government envisaged and announced during a Stormont debate on the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation.
I end on a constituency appeal. Little new industry has been introduced to North Down compared, for instance, with the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) in particular. It is lamentable that North Down has been deprived of new industries which are needed for that area, when the North Down area plan published recently indicates a substantial growth in the population of the area. Plainly much new industry will have to be brought into the area if unemployment, which is already showing an increase, is not to become worse. We must try to avoid this.
I am particularly glad that one of the key provisions is for the Corporation to undertake new investment and to assist undertakings not yet established in Northern Ireland, and I wish it every success.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Clearly this is not the time for a general debate on the principles of intervention in private industry or upon the underlying nature of the tragedy of the Six Counties. Nevertheless, it would perhaps be wrong if, very briefly, a contrary view on both points were not put on the record.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) had a little gentle fun with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on the common acceptance on both sides of the House of interventionism of a kind to which he on his side has more right than has my hon. Friend on his side. The laws of economics and of human nature do not alter when they pass the Irish Sea. The harm and economic loss which ultimately result from public money, raised by taxation or by borrowing on public account, being invested in projects which public bodies and civil servants under various names consider may be profitable are just the same on this side of the Irish Sea and the other. Indeed, since they are harmful, a rather stronger economy is needed so that it might suffer less from their impact. These policies are more harmful and are

likely to do more damage in an economy where the difficulties are greater than in one where they are less. Therefore, I cannot join with my hon. Friends representing Northern Ireland constituencies, though I understand the temptations to which they are submitted, in welcoming on economic grounds the proposal which Stormont passed and which will now, of course, be accepted by this Parliament.
Nor can I accept the connection between this proposal and the violence in Northern Ireland. The Review Committee quoted by my hon. Friend put forward the view that unemployment in Northern Ireland and economic change and the consequences of economic change in Northern Ireland had been a contributory factor to the violence and the disturbances. The hon. Member for Leeds, South said that it was one of the underlying causes of the unrest. I totally disagree. This notion is part of the old fallacy that evils such as violence arise from economic causes, that delinquency is due to bad housing, and so on. Nothing could be more uncomprehending in the face of what is happening in the Six Counties than the notion that these are the consequences of unemployment and of economic conditions. They are of political character, of political origin, and they would have occurred if economic circumstances had been totally different. Indeed, it would possibly be easier to argue that they would have been more likely to occur, and would, perhaps, have taken on an earlier and more exacerbated form, if economic circumstances had been more favourable.
Therefore, if we are doing this thing under the delusion that it will contribute to ending violence in the Six Counties, we are flying in the face of all experience.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) would not expect me to agree with him for I welcome most wholeheartedly the establishment of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation in the circumstances prevailing in that part of the United Kingdom.
It is particularly sad that when the axe of direct rule fell, the Bill in its Stormont form was literally only hours away from receiving the Royal Assent,


but since then two and a half months have been lost before it has come before this House to complete its stages. I do not wish to make a meal of the fact that we have had 10 weeks of direct rule, but this Measure had then almost been completed. It was at the same stage of near-completion as the Prosecution of Offences Bill which came before this House as an order some weeks ago. It is unfortunate that we have had to wait this time for a Measure which both the Secretary of State and the former Northern Ireland Government were agreed was a matter of considerable urgency.
It is possible and perhaps fair to ask how many firms which could have been helped have not been helped during the past two and a half months. I ask this because on 17th February Mr. Bailie, then Minister of Commerce in Northern Ireland, said in Stormont that cases which would fall to be dealt with by the Corporation would be dealt with by the Ministry of Commerce until the legislation was passed. Has this been done, and if it has, how effective has it been?
I am indebted to the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) for not engaging, as so easily and justifiably he could have done, in play about the fact that when the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation was being abolished by this Parliament, the Northern Ireland Government were contemplating the establishment of this Corporation. But there is a distinction to be drawn between the IRC and the NIFC. The justification for the NIFC is purely and simply the assistance it will give to those firms in Northern Ireland which need help because of the damage they may have suffered because of terrorist activities. Herein lies the difference between the IRC, which had a blanket economic assistance grant at its disposal and the NIFC.
I welcome that there is provision in the order for financial assistance to new projects. Tragically there are very few new projects in the pipeline in Northern Ireland at this time. But it is nothing short of miraculous that during the past three years, when every aspect of Ulster life has been ravaged by the attacks of terrorists, the economy has been in as good a shape as this. It is a tribute to the grit and determination of everyone engaged in Northern Ireland industry that

they have not allowed themselves to be daunted by the gunman and the bomber.
Some months ago the CBI in Northern Ireland conducted a survey of 200 firms which represented about 80 per cent. of the work force engaged in manufacturing industry in the Province. The results showed that 85 per cent. of the firms questioned stated that their order books were as healthy as, or healthier than, they had been a year previously. As my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilkedder) said, one of the reasons that the Ulster economy has not suffered more is that it was in fairly good shape up to 1968. It had widely diversified, very largely as a result of the tremendous efforts in the late 1950s and the 1960s by the then Minister of Commerce, Mr. Brian Faulkner.
The reason why the NIFC is so important for Ulster at the moment and is so urgently needed is that the momentum which was gained during that time must not be lost as a result of these disturbances. The Corporation will help to ensure that the economy will be able to ride over this terrible period in our history.
I was not so long ago an auditor in Northern Ireland and I know that many firms there were in extremely healthy financial shape. Many of those firms are now in trouble. Although they have dealt with suppliers in Britain for many years, they are now having their credit arrangements withdrawn and are being asked to provide cash for supplies and yet at the same time are giving credit to their customers. Very few firms can go on for any length of time in that situation. Liquidity problems, acute as they are in certain manufacturing concerns, are of the gravest nature in many retail and distributive organisations, particularly in the city centre of Belfast.
Although there may be some anxiety about the Corporation being given sweeping powers, what must be welcomed is the provision that it shall be a condition of Corporation support that management structures where necessary shall be improved. This is a welcome move because there are a number of firms about whose management qualities one has had reason to be anxious for some time.
I conclude by dealing with the question of public accountability. When this


subject was discussed in Stormont there was a sharp division of opinion among Unionist back benchers there. I do not challenge the change which has been made in the original Stormont legislation, but as a member of the Public Accounts Committee of this House I would be hard put to put it to justify such a position. I believe there should be public accountability for any organisation where public funds are employed; personally, I have no doubt about this at all. What concerns me, however, is that in the order the Comptroller and Auditor-General in Northern Ireland is the person to whom the Corporation should report. The Public Accounts Committee in Northern Ireland, to which he normally would be responsible, is now in limbo.
Does this mean that consideration is being given to the establishment of a Sub-Committee to deal with Northern Ireland matters in the Public Accounts Committee in this House? I do not know whether that is being contemplated, but I should have thought there was a case for that to be done. It is surely crazy that in the first year of operation there should be no opportunity for some accountability for the money which will be expended. I very much hope that, since so many exceptions have been made and ad hoc arrangements introduced, as a result of the prorogation of Stormont, we should for this year have in this House a Sub-Committee dealing with Northern Ireland matters, matters which normally would have come before the Stormont Public Accounts Committee.
I conclude as I began by warmly welcoming the order in the light of the present circumstances in Northern Ireland.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I should like to say a few words in support of this order, which I welcome. I agree with other hon. Members about the urgency of setting up such a Corporation. Although I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) about the unrest perhaps not having its roots in unemployment, I am convinced that, because many people are unemployed and underemployed, particularly in areas such as Londonderry and Newry, that is to say, in the large border towns of Northern Ireland, this has aggravated

the unrest which has plagued Northern Ireland for the past three years.
Therefore, in so far as this unemployment problem can be tackled by the Government by giving support to private industry, I feel the setting up of a Corporation such as this might help to restore law and order in Northern Ireland.
However, it is a fact that civil unrest, in any part of the world, usually occurs not when conditions are at their worst but rather when they are improving, and to this extent I agree with my right hon. Friend. It has been suggested on occasions that conditions were improving so rapidly that the republican elements in the community were becoming apprehensive that unless they acted quickly they would find little support and that it was perhaps this which accelerated the events which occurred in 1969 and led to the present state of anarchy and open rebellion in Ulster.
I have seen the effects of unemployment in my constituency. East Belfast has been badly affected by the rundown in traditional industry referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and other hon. Members during this short debate. I have particularly been concerned with the effects of the mechanisation of the shipbuilding industry. When I became the Member for Belfast, East 13 years ago, 24,000 men were employed in Harland and Wolff, but in the following five or six years that was cut in half and more and is now down to 12,000 or less. But as a result of the vast sums of public money spent on Harland and Wolff the capacity of the yard is much larger than it was before so that, with a work force less than half what it was 12 years ago, it can now produce a far greater tonnage of ships. That is one of the factors which has led to unemployment in shipbuilding, not only in Northern Ireland but in the United Kingdom and throughout the world.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to say a little about the service industries. If we are to have any hope in future, in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole, of employing the numbers employed in the United Kingdom over the past 50 years, we must pay a great deal more attention to supporting and promoting the service industries. The order refers particularly


to manufacturing industry. In Northern Ireland there is little hope that manufacturing industry can be expanded rapidly enough to take up the slack for which it has to cater—in the first place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) said those displaced from agriculture due partly to mechanisation and partly to the high birth rate in Northern Ireland. If these numbers are to be employed in Northern Ireland industry, we must build up the catering and hotel industry and other such industries in Ulster.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend what help is to be given from this sum to the service industries. I should like to ask him to pay particular attention to building up the tourist industry in Northern Ireland. We are, and were in better times, proud of the attraction of our fine beaches and coastline, and there is fishing and shooting, if I may use that word in the present context. I ask whether particular help could be given to the hotel industry which would provide employment for many people in Ulster.
It should be one of the functions of the Government to help spread employment evenly throughout the United Kingdom and I therefore support an attempt, such as that in this order, by the Government, to use public money to support private industry to enable it to function where in ordinary economic conditions it would not otherwise flourish. If it were not for Government intervention in these matters, industry would tend to concentrate more and more in the South-East of England, to the great disadvantage not only of Northern Ireland but of other outlying parts of the United Kingdom. This would produce social problems in the South-East and of course problems associated with unemployment in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is for this reason that I feel that the money proposed in the order may prove inadequate.
I should like to repeat what some of my hon. Friends said. What is the Government's long-term aim with respect to assisting industry, both manufacturing and service, in Northern Ireland? Is the £50 million to last one year or two? Is it to be a rotating sum? What provision is to be made to augment it? What will be the long-term role of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation?

11.17 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: At this late stage I shall make but one brief point with regard to the suggestion that the scope of the Corporation should be extended to cover companies operating on both sides of the Border. I remind the House of the difficulties arising from the allocation of largesums of money to areas outside our jurisdiction without proper safeguards. One has in mind the payment by the United Kingdom Exchequer of £10 million per year to agriculture in Eire under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement. Parliament here has no control over this sum, which in the past has been used in such a way as to bring ruination to the meat packing industry in Northern Ireland. I therefore urge the utmost caution in this respect.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Keith Stainton: This clearly is not the time to indulge in polemics or to go into the background of the situation, but there are three specific points about this order I want to raise.
First, the new Corporation has an overall limit of £50 million on the principle of advances. An Order in Council is an unprecedented way of setting up a non-Governmental body with such a large budget. This point should be made clearly and in conjunction with that I should like to say—and I am open to contradiction—that my impression of the whole situation is that this is a £50 million subvention from the taxpayers in England, Scotland and Wales to Northern Ireland. I do not necessarily regret that, but let us please have it on the record that this Order in Council procedure for an amount of this size is without precedent and that this is a subvention out of my pocket and the pockets of others in England, Scotland and Wales to those in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McMaster: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the provisions of the order. Under paragraph 4(2), this money is to be used to acquire shares or to make loans or to give guarantees, but not to give grants. Therefore, in so far as the money spent will be represented in shares and loans, it can hardly be said to be a subvention in the way of a direct gift.

Mr. Stainton: That all depends on whether the loans and guarantees and shareholdings come home. Every ship needs a fair wind to get it into harbour. Perhaps we can leave the point at that.
I turn to the question of public accountability. I am not impressed by the argument advanced by various Ulster Unionist Members tonight about the possible inhibitions on this Corporation in terms of activity of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. As I remarked in an intervention, an audit is a posthumous inquiry and there is an essential difference between a commercial audit and the Public Accounts Committee procedure, which is implicit in what is proposed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General's reports.
Nevertheless, I take the point made by one of my hon. Friends about where these reports will lie, whether they will come home to roost in the Public Accounts Committee of this House or some new sub-committee of that body. I do not care to differentiate between the one and the other, but, heavens above, for Cooper Brothers or some similar firm of chartered accountants to inquire where the money has been spent is one thing, and it is quite another for a Committee of the House to inquire into the directions in which the money has gone. I have here a brief which refers to Dr. Paisley—an un-parliamentary way for me to refer to him—but I must compliment him on his insistence that the Comptroller and Auditor General at least should be brought into these proceedings.
Finally, and very briefly, I query with my hon. Friend the adequacy of Article 8 of this order. I refer specifically to the
Limit on guarantee by Corporation and Ministry of Finance and sums advanced to the Corporation
and the limit of £50 million. Article 8(c) says:
the principal of any loans in respect of which guarantees have been given by the Ministry of Finance under Article 6(2)".
Under Article 6(1),
The Corporation may, with the approval of the Ministry and the Ministry of Finance, borrow money.
I suggest that there is a deficiency in the drafting of Article 8(c), and that it should read

the principal of any loans in respect of which moneys have been borrowed and/or guarantees have been given by the Ministry of Finance under Article 6(1) and 6(2).
I take it as quite incontrovertible that under Article 6(1) the Corporation, with the approval of the Ministry, may borrow money. Therefore, the loans are entirely open; there is no guarantee in that at all. It is discretionary under Article 6(2) whether guarantees may be forthcoming or not. I should like to see it embraced in Article 8, so that instead of reading as it now stands Article 8(c) should read,
the principal of any loans in respect of which moneys have been borrowed and/or guarantees have been given by the Ministry of Finance under Article 6(1) and 6(2).

11.23 p.m.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: I shall not delay the House long at this time of night.
I should like to make one point to my hon. Friend. I represent a major proportion of the canning industry in Armagh, and I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that during the past year or so it has been passing through a very difficult time. The great difficulty in the canning industry is simply that in a year of a good crop the canners have not the finance to can all the surplus apples, and they are, therefore, dumped. That, in conjunction with the competition from Italy, leaves the canning industry in a very poor state indeed.
I hope that my hon. Friend, when he discusses this with his colleagues, will pay particular attention to this very vital industry in Northern Ireland, because this crop is an indigenous one, and 90 per cent. of it is grown in the County of Armagh, and in connection with it a lot of people are employed directly and indirectly. If this industry were to die it would have a bad effect on the rural population. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will pay particular attention to the canning industry when this money is disbursed.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. David Howell: I am grateful to hon. Members for the welcome which most have given to this order, which covers a matter that was, as I said earlier, almost completed but for the last stages in the Stormont Parliament, now prorogued. In the time remaining the most fruitful thing would be for me to try to answer some of the questions that have


been raised and to make some general observations as I go.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) began by asking about bombed firms and whether it was the intention that this instrument should be used to help firms that had received terrorist bomb damage. While it could conceivably be so used if a firm got into difficulty as a result, there are other instruments which are the prime ones for bringing rapid aid to firms disrupted by terrorist activity and which have been specifically bombed, not suffering from the consequences of bombing elsewhere. Those are the compensation payments under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Acts, specific insurance support and "topping-up" by the Minister of Commerce and a number of other bodies, to counter redundancy, and to find employment for people whose jobs are lost as a result of bombing. There is a wide range of measures in the armoury ready to help in this kind of situation, and examples have been seen recently, such as with the bombing of Courtaulds at Carrickfergus. This would not be one of the main aims of this instrument.
The hon. Gentleman asked about criteria. This is of central importance. They are set out in the order but he rightly probed further on the question of the prospects of solvency. What do we mean by that? This is one of those general conundrums, general propositions, to which there is almost any answer that the proponent cares to make. What has to be specified is the exceptional nature of the Northern Ireland situation, the exceptional difficulties into which firms are plunged, not by bad management, not by ill-judgment or investment in products which subsequently cannot be sold with the result that there is no profit, but simply by the icy winds of events which suddenly lead to a situation where their normal customers will not place orders, where all sorts of production difficulties and needs for security interfere with the positive cost structure of a project in which it may be involved. These and many other matters incidental to the general civil disturbances, incidental to other more specific acts of terrorism, are the difficulties which some Northern Ireland firms have had to face, and in some cases they have been very severe. In many cases, despite their severity, they

have been superbly and effectively met and overcome.
There have been, are and will be cases where these effects have a direct and temporarily devastating effect on operations, cash available and the smooth running of the firm. It is this kind of situation, where the long-term prospects of the firm in normal times, using reasonable judgment—and this is a subjective judgment—are good, when it is felt it would be a viable firm and could be solvent, that the powers will be helpful. This is the only way in which I can clarify and develop the points made on the criteria.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about financing and asked why it was out of the Consolidated Fund. I am sure he will accept that if every operation, undertaking, move and policy decision by the Corporation were to be a matter of debate and intensive discussion in this House, it would place the Corporation in an impossible position or, at any rate, a position far removed from the precise position in which we wish it to be of having flexibility in helping firms. So there would be an obvious difficulty there.
As for borrowing from outside, I agree that this is a slightly optimistic power to take in the present situation. We do not envisage that the Corporation will be doing much borrowing from outside, certainly not unguaranteed, in the near future. But some situation might arise where it would be useful, and that is why the power is there.
The hon. Gentleman referred to common economic policies with the Republic of Ireland. I do not think that he was suggesting what one of my hon. Friends may have thought, that subventions and aid operations should extend both sides of the border. The Stormont Government were taking steps to examine and develop economic links with the Republic, and we should like to see it go further in a number of obvious areas like tourism, regional questions, energy and such matters. This is a point which was being pursued, and it must be again.
I come, then, to the question of accountability, which was first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) but also by many others. Also my hon. Friend was unwise enough to claim universal assent for the


principle in the hearing of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I ought to have warned my hon. Friend that he would not get far in claiming that there was general agreement. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made all too clear, he feels very differently on this matter, as on others.
The question of accountability is one to which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have been giving close consideration. Defending myself and my colleagues from another criticism which has been voiced, it has been necessary because of this to make some changes and involve ourselves in some redrafting, and this is one of the reasons why the order comes six or seven weeks after the Temporary Provisions Act and not sooner. When hon. Members remember that we had a new Government machine to set up and a new situation to establish, it is not too bad that we have succeeded in bringing forward this order in the time that we have with the necessary changes in it. The one body on which very great credit is reflected by the swift way in which this and other operations have been carried out is the Northern Ireland Civil Service, for which no praise is too high in the circumstances in which it has been operating in the last few months.
On the question of accountability, the change that we have made is that the Corporation is now required to go through not merely the commercial audit but the audit of the Comptroller and Auditor General of Northern Ireland. It is now required to make reports to the Minister on the performance of its functions, and these must be laid, together with copies of its statements of accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on each annual statement of account, before the prorogued Parliament at Stormont. While it is prorogued, the statutory obligation will be discharged by the reports being handed in to the Votes and Proceedings Office, and copies of reports will be made available on request to Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
The question that immediately arises is that that is all very well, but we are talking about a prorogued body. Will Westminster have any opportunity of see-

ing the reports? The precise position is that the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act does not require the laying of reports under Orders in Council made under the Act before Parliament at Westminster while Stormont is prorogued. There is therefore at present no requirement, strictly speaking, that these reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General have to be laid before this Parliament or before its Committees. However, we recognise the obvious difficulty—the "deficiency" if one likes—that that creates and my right hon. Friend is considering how this might be resolved.
It is a matter in the last resort for the House of Commons itself to resolve and take a view on. If the Public Accounts Committee and hon. Members wish to examine and go into detail on all reports put forward by the Comptroller and Auditor General it might be possible to arrange informally that these reports are submitted, but these matters will have to be considered further. The difficulty is recognised. It is not met by the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, but it is clearly there, and it is a matter to which attention and consideration will and must be given.
I was asked about ICL and the £2½ million purchase of shares which has been made under existing Northern Ireland provisions by the Ministry of Commerce. The hope and intention is that the Corporation will turn its attention to this matter, but the sum of money involved is not included in the £50 million ceiling. It does not come under that. As another hon. Member reminded us, an undertaking was given earlier that the Ministry of Commerce would involve itself directly in specific cases where firms were in severe difficulties arising from terrorist activities and civil disturbances and would do so pending the arrival on the scene of the Corporation. In fact, in one or two cases the Ministry of Commerce has been prepared to help and has been dealing with a number of cases, although not many have arisen.
I was asked about liaison with the Department of Trade and Industry. There has been liaison on this matter, but we are dealing with a wholly exceptional situation in Northern Ireland in which swift measures to deal with a particular area or situation related to the


civil disturbances and to the unrest in the Province had to be taken. That was the situation in which the purchase of the shares in ICL Castlereagh took place. It was a move dictated by the circumstances of an exceptional security situation and influenced by civil disturbances. It was in that situation that my right hon. Friend judged that it was right to make this move.
I think that I have dealt with most of the points that were raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) asked about service industries. I said at the beginning that, although it was expected that the Corporation would look mostly at manufacturing concerns, retailers and hotels are not ruled out. Further legislation to help hotels is being considered by my right hon. Friend, but the service industries are not ruled out. Indeed, as we go along, and as opportunities emerge, they may be the subject of substantial attention from the Corporation. We must leave that to the discretion of the Corporation as it goes along, but it has it in mind that the service industries should receive its attention.

Mr. Stainton: My hon. Friend appears to be on the point of extinguishing the flame of his candle. I asked about Article 6(1) and creditors and those who advanced money to the Corporation. My hon. Friend said that he was reaching the end of his speech. I think that the point that I raised is very important in terms of the top limit of £50 million.

Mr. Howell: I had not forgotten my hon. Friend. Any impression that I had reached my peroration was false: I will certainly be dealing with his point.
I wanted to deal briefly first with the question of the life of the Corporation. All the Corporation's powers of financial assistance under Article 4 (2) will cease on 31st March, 1975, unless extended by affirmative order. We cannot know now whether there is likely to be a continuing need for the Corporation after that date or whether in its present form it will be geared to meet that need, but if there should be a need to change it, clearly, fresh legislation would have to be promoted. But the order-making provision would allow for extension if it were de-

cided that the present powers were adequate and if we are still studying events.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) rightly said that this is a very large proposition to be tackling by Order in Council. We recognise that fully, but this is an exceptional situation. We are under the Temporary Provisions Act. The matter has been discussed to the last process in the legislative procedures in another Parliament, now prorogued. For that reason, we feel justified in bringing it into being by Order in Council. But do not let my hon. Friend imagine that we can brush aside his proposition that this is a substantial matter.
I have been into my hon. Friend's point about Article 8 very carefully. I have looked not merely at the particular sentence to which he pointed but at the other three paragraphs. I am advised that, taken together, they effectively establish the £50 million ceiling in the way required by the order. I see his point in suggesting different wording, but I would ask him to accept that the ceiling is established.
We are dealing with a wholly exceptional situation. I understand the irresistible temptation of the hon. Member for Leeds, South to make comparisons with Socialist experiments, but I know that he will accept—because his comments on the Northern Ireland situation have been very profound—the exceptional nature of the situation there, the exceptional need to take radical measures to maintain employment and the economic confidence and viability of the province. I think that it can be done net merely with this instrument but with many others and, above all, with the effort and vitality of the people of the Province of Ulster. I therefore commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 731), a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Orders of the Day — CAMBOIS, NORTHUMBERLAND (PULP MILL PROJECT)

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: There is no need to stress in an Adjournment debate dealing with the siting of new industry in my constituency the need for new jobs in an area where the unemployment rate is 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. and has been for a number of years. In 1959 the industrial area of Cambois was scheduled by the Northumberland County Council as an industrial area.
We are dealing with a village which has strong local ties and which once from its pits supplied Buckingham Palace with coal. The pit closed three to four years ago, and the village still bears in its housing and environmental background its past industrial activity. There is need, as is recognised by the people of the area, for the rejuvenation of the village. This is why the pulp mill project came as a glimmer of hope which could possibly turn into a major breakthrough similar to the arrival of Glaxo Laboratories on the nearby site about two years ago.
Not only is there the question of the siting of the pulp mill and the jobs that it provides, but the capital investment of £15 million to £20 million could lead to a large amount of work in other parts of the area. If the project was started in 1972, full production could be reached by 1975.
Therefore, a project that would provide in the pulp mill itself 350 jobs, a further 650 jobs in timber harvesting and haulage operations, and construction jobs in addition, could well be a safety valve in an area that has struggled for the last 10 years at least to give itself a return to something approaching full employment.
I gather that the question of the timber requirements is the major obstacle to the project going ahead. An independent survey has been prepared. The timber needed from 1971 to 1985 and onwards is considerable in quantity. We appreciate the difficulties in this respect. When the matter was first brought to my attention, I was puzzled by the attitude of the Forestry Commission and later angered at what appeared, in a job-hungry area, to be a casual, rather detached approach to the question of timber supplies and the commission's ability—or lack of it—to

provide the supplies needed. I felt like asking: what is the Forestry Commission up to?
On 8th December, 1970, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that it was to review the various aspects of forestry policy. In their annual report for 1970–71 the commissioners reported in the following terms:
It is not always recognised by the public that the Commission is not an independent body. It is no more and no less than an instrument of Government policy, like any other Department of the Crown, and as such it looks to its three Ministers for its instructions on its major objectives and the size of its programme.
On that basis we are saying that, as the responsibility referred to in that report obviously lies with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the ball is firmly back in that court. An independent survey of the Forestry Commissioner's timber availability and harvesting and marketing methods was carried out at the request of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and submitted to him on 5th August, 1971. The report was prepared by Mr. Henning Hamilton, one of Scandinavia's leading timber experts.
Little or no contact was made with the firm connected with the project in the period around which the figures were given and the surveys were made. The firm Parsons and Whittemore Lyddon, of Croydon, is the one to which we are referring. This is to be regretted because the Minister in his letter of 20th September, 1971, stated to the firm that the project did not have the backing of the Timber Growers Association and various other timber associations, including the Home Timber Merchants Association of Scotland.
To disprove that statement completely I want to refer to two letters. Forest Thinnings Limited makes the statement:
I am sorry to hear that Mr. Prior is not willing to support your project. You may be interested to know that this matter came up in discussion at a general meeting of the Home Timber Merchants Association of England and Wales on Tuesday, 5th October, and we were most annoyed about the statement made by Mr. Prior in his penultimate paragraph when he said that the HTMA view was the requirements of your proposed pulp mill could only be met by a substantial reduction in the level of supplies to existing industries. I would like to inform you that a letter will


be sent from our Secretary direct to Mr. Prior in the strongest terms dissociating ourselves with this comment, and asking him where he obtained this information as no officers of the HTMAEW were consulted concerning your project.
But what is possibly of even greater importance is a letter couched in the same terms from Northern Forestry Products Limited. I believe that it is more important because that firm is sited in the area and knows not only the problems of the timber requirements and the means of supply but also the needs and demands of an area suffering from high employment. The firm states:
The decision of the Minister is very sad and one that will be very deeply regretted in the north-east, not least by members of Northern Forestry Products Ltd. and the Timber Growers Organisation in this region. We too are convinced that a north-east pulp-mill would be a viable project and would have helped the economy of this region as well as giving great encouragement to the forestry industry as a whole.
Following a meeting which I had with the Minister for Industrial Development on 15th May, at which Dr. Hummel, of the Forestry Commission, was present, I wrote asking for more detailed information. I was exceptionally disappointed with the replies I was given. Following a survey and examination, the Scandinavian expert's report on this matter is that a policy is required by the Forestry Commission to support new and important industries based on forest products.
That is precisely the job opportunity creation for which we are asking in this Adjournment debate. The main demand is that the Forestry Commission encourages and supports potential large users of forest products in order to secure a satisfactory net return from the forestry. In reading the Forestry Commission's reports of the last few years and being a representative of Northumberland, which has within its boundaries the largest man-made forest in Europe, the Kielder Forest, I find this demand justifiable. When this survey was made not only was it a ground survey but in a flight from Newcastle airport of a little over an hour it was seen clearly that the density of the forest undertakings was sufficient to supply the type of project and the type of jobs that a pulp mill would provide.
The Minister has attempted to state that the timber would need to be drawn

from one end of Britain to the other. That is absolutely incorrect. The timber can be drawn over an area of South Scotland, Northumberland and parts of Durham.
On the question of job opportunities, the port of Blyth, recently deepened and prepared for the Alcan aluminium smelter, is now ready and available for handling projects of this description. We need something more than the replies which have been given by the Minister and the Forestry Commission.
This situation creates other problems which possibly are outside the Minister's scope. For instance, we are dealing with some of the protests made in the area against the siting of a mill there because of considerations of conservation and pollution. Being in close touch with my constituents on this matter, I can well understand them. But the conservation society in the area has been given a detailed reply from the firm on the situation in relation to modern pulp mills. The district will be visited in June and meetings of the residents will be addressed by representatives of the firm. Therefore, even in an area where jobs are of major importance, attention is being paid to the conservation side, which is appropriate since we are debating this matter on the day of the opening in Stockholm of the United Nations conference on this subject. Therefore, we readily recognise the concern of some people about this matter.
I wish to refer to a local issue. A visit was paid on the night the pulp mill was announced by Councillor Bosworth of Blyth, who asked the residents of the area to oppose the pulp mill project. Within a week of the announcement of the project, before there had been anything like adequate local discussion, Councillor Mertakis, from the same council, was seeking members for what he described as an action committee to prevent the siting of the pulp mill. These were actions by both councillors of what I consider to be a highly irresponsible character in an area where all local authorities have done sterling work over the past 10 years to attract new industries in a period fraught with difficulties.
This is a continuing story. In 1960 there were 42,000 mining jobs in North-umberland. Because of the recession of the industry, those jobs have dwindled


to about 13,000. While some major successes can be recorded in job attraction, we are still running very hard in Northumberland to keep exactly where we were 10 years ago. An unemployment rate of 10 to 12 per cent., despite massive injections of Government capital by both parties when in office, makes the pulp mill not only of outstanding importance but vitally necessary in order to improve the morale of an area which is reeling from the impact of the recent increase in unemployment. I hope that the Ministry will give adequate attention to the demands made in this matter.

12 midnight.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Mills): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) for once again bringing this problem to the attention of the House, and I would like to congratulate him on the way in which he has done so. The debate will allow me to clear up several misunderstandings and put the Government's case fairly clearly.
Any proposed industrial development which offers the prospect of a substantial number of new jobs in the North-East of England, together with a useful degree of import substitution, deserves careful and sympathetic consideration. This particular proposal has been in view for some nine or ten years in one form or another, and the lapse of time is perhaps indicative that certain problems exist which have not so far been overcome. As the Minister responsible for the Forestry Commission in England, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has taken a close personal interest in the question of what supplies of timber might be available from the commission to the proposed pulp mill. He has not relied solely on the advice of the commission but has also looked carefully at the estimates of potential supplies which have been made by the consultants appointed by the promoters of the project.
My right hon. Friend has also had detailed discussions on supplies with both the promoters and the Forestry Commission, and he has reluctantly come to the unavoidable conclusion that supplies from the commission of the order which the promoters seem to require are simply not realistic. The quantities of timber

which the pulp mill apparently needs could be met only at the expense of supplies to existing industries, and this would not result in any net gain in employment.
This is a key point and to go ahead, building up hopes, would be wrong and unfair. The hon. Member talks about raising morale but nothing could be more disastrous than to raise morale by starting the project and then for it to fail through lack of supplies. This would be a bitter disappointment. Of course we are sympathetic, but I hope the hon. Gentleman realises that the question of supplies is a key issue. In our view, the quantities of timber which the promoters expect to obtain from private woodlands are also, frankly, equally unrealistic, again bearing in mind the demand from existing industries for home-grown timber. As far as I am aware, the promoters have had no firm guarantees from individual private suppliers on any scale remotely approaching their estimated requirement.
I believe that the Forestry Commission has been urged to meet the pulp mill's requirements by premature felling on a considerable scale, but this is not an attractive proposition even though it may appear so. Not only would such an action be uneconomic but it could be only a very short-term solution, leading inevitably to a serious reduction in the amount of timber which would be available to industry in the long term. Again, this would raise hopes because the project would begin and collapse.
My right hon. Friend will shortly be making an announcement on the Government's review of forestry policy. I cannot anticipate the conclusions of that review but it is safe to say that the expedient of virtually devastating the Commission's young forests in the North-East of England in order to produce short-term supplies which could not be sustained would not be acceptable in the context of any rational policy for forestry on either a local or a national plane. A programme of replanting in the wake of this felling could not produce timber of value to the pulp mill for at least 25 years, and then it would be only in the form of early thinnings. I am sure the hon. Gentleman could not agree to that.
I also understand that several million gallons of water would be required daily when the mill was in operation, and it


is not yet entirely clear that supplies on this scale could be available. This is another important factor and a point which the Government must examine. Again, this is a problem of a basic raw material for the mill. The mill's likely effect on the environment will also have to be very carefully examined. This aspect of the matter cannot be dismissed.
The creation of jobs in the proposed pulp mill and in the ancillary activities is, naturally, a highly attractive prospect. The hon. Member rightly draws attention to the unacceptably high rate of unemployment in the locality. He rightly asks that the Forestry Commission should augment the supplies that it might be able to make available by diverting supplies from other consumers. This is not a realistic solution, Existing consumers, by long-standing custom and in many cases by contract as well, have a right to regular and predictable supplies. In any case, to interrupt these supplies could only put at risk their enterprises and the jobs they offer.
The bulk of the timber supplied by the commission is consumed in the development areas, and I see no merit at all in arbitrarily robing Peter of his job in one development area merely in the hope of being able at some stage to give it to Paul in the same or another development area. In so far as the project depends on new supplies of home-grown timber, I am afraid that the project must give real doubt to anyone who has studied the facts.
The hon. Member, well intentioned though he may be, must realise these facts, and I hope he appreciates that we are sympathetic but that it is a question of the supply of timber and of water. I believe that it would be disastrous to start the matter off, with all the hopes that it would raise, and then fail through lack of supplies. I hope the hon. Member will appreciate our reasons for not agreeing to this proposal.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.